AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olution Professional For Mr. Anant Merathia, Advocate and R2 For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Thriyambak Kannan, Advocate For the Caveator : Mr. A. Murali, Advocate ORDER (Virtual Mode) Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial): According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant, that the `Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant' was not made a party to IA No. 132 of 2020 in CP (IB) No. 228 / BB / 2018, before the `Adjudicating Authority' (`National Company Law Tribunal', Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru), therefore, the `Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant' could not represent in IA No. 132 of 2020. In fact, the `Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant' is an `Aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant / Resolution Applicant' was under the impression that the `Appellant' and its `Revised Plan' was still under consideration. Further, even after receiving the revised bid, the Rs. 1st Respondent' had not provided any reason for not considering and placing the `revised bid', before the Rs. 2nd Respondent' or before the `Adjudicating Authority' (`Tribunal'). 4. The Learned Counsel for the `Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant', points out that the `Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant' was not aware that the `Respondent Nos. 1 and 2', had declared the Rs. 3rd Respondent' as the `H1 Resolution Applicant', on the basis of `Meeting dated 18.02.2020', without giving any `cogent reason', as to why the `Resolution Plan' subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is an `Aggrieved Person', over the action of the Rs. 1st Respondent', in not placing the `Revised Bid' before the `Committee of Creditors' and the `Approval' of the `Plan' of the Rs. 3rd Respondent' was done, without `considering' / `approving' / `rejecting' the `Revised Bid' of the `Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant'. 8. Per contra, the Learned Senior Counsel for the `Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant' submits that the `Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant' was not made a party to IA No. 132 of 2020 in CP (IB) No. 228 / BB / 2018, before the `Adjudicating Authority' and further that, as per Section 30 of the I & B Code, 2016, the Rs. 1st Respondent' (like any `Resolution Professional') was duty bound t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the conditions for payment of operational creditors or alternatively the Committee will not consider the conditional payment to the operational creditors. However, it was also noted that the Resolution Applicant himself voluntarily removed the conditions for payment to the operational creditors and reduced the payment to Rs. 1 Crore instead of Rs.30 Crores.'' 11. Besides the above, in the `Minutes of the Meeting' of the `Committee of Creditors of `M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited' dated 18.02.2020 at Page 123 of the `Appeal Paper Book' of the `Petitioner / Appellant / Resolution Applicant', it is clearly mentioned as under: ``After the round 8, the Resolution Applicant i.e. Bipin Textile Processing Industries Private Limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the two valuers.'' 12. Also, in the `Minutes of the Meeting' of the `Committee of Creditors' of M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited at Page 118 of the `Appeal Paper Book'; Spl Pg: 125, it is observed as under: ``Accordingly, the Resolution Professional proposed the following Resolution for the Committee of Creditors for their voting: ``RESOLVED THAT the Resolution Plan submitted by the H1 Bidder i.e., Starteck Finance Limited be and is hereby approved by the Committee of Creditors.'' After deliberation, the Committee of Creditors requested for initiating an E-voting along with the minutes of the Meeting and accordingly the decision shall be conveyed. The Resolution Professional further informed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and hence the IA No. 771 of 2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 341 of 2022, is liable to be dismissed, to secure `Interest of Justice'. 15. At this juncture, this `Tribunal' aptly points out that the `object of seeking Leave', is to prevent an `unreasonable plea' to be taken by a `Stakeholder' / `Litigant', who has no `Tangible' / `Substantial Defence', in regard to the implementation of the `Resolution Plan'. 16. On a careful consideration of the respective contentions and this `Tribunal', on going through, the contents of the `Minutes of the Meeting' of the `Committee of Creditors' (M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited dated 18.02.2020), is of the considered view that the `Resolution Plan' furnished by the `Petitioner / Appel....