AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hare, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Sumesh Dhanwan, Ms. Shweta Deuby, Ms. Kanishka Prasad and Ms. Ichchha Kalash, Advocates for R-1/Resolution Professional. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Mishra, Mr. Pai Amit, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, and Mr. Ishan Roy Choudury Advocates for R-2. Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Aditya Shukla and Ms. Diksha Gupta, Advocates. ORDER ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court II dismissing I.A No. 602 of 2023 in CP (IB) No. 434/(MB) 2018 filed by the Appellant. Brief background fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CoC vide its 27th meeting held on 10.02.2023 rejected all the Resolution Plans and decided to issue fresh RFRP. vii. Fresh RFRP was issued on 10.02.2023. On 14.02.2023, the Appellant filed I.A. No. 602/2023 before the Adjudicating Authority praying for following reliefs: "i. allow the present Application; ii. rescind the re-issued RFRP dated February 10, 2023 issued by the RP and the CoC as the same is in contravention of the NCLAT Order; iii. Not accept any revisions to the earlier resolution plans submitted by the PRAS and to not receive or open any new resolution plans pursuant to the request for resolution plan dated February 10, 2023; iv. Direct the RP and the CoC to re- initiate the Voting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... approval favouring one particular Resolution Applicant whose plan has been approved in a hasty manner, when the issue of new RFRP was sub-judice before the Adjudicating Authority. Appellant was denied right of participation in the process although Appellant was ready to offer an amount of INR 365 Crores for the resolution of the Corporate Debtor. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that this Tribunal vide its judgment dated 18.01.2023 directed the CoC to vote on all the Resolution Plans, which order clearly intended that CoC has to take a final decision on the plans received and it was not open for the CoC to reject all plans and issue new RFRP. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that approval of the plan which was hurried....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of the Resolution Professional and the CoC are consistent with the NCLAT order. Para 8 of the impugned order is as follows: "8. In order to deal with the first issue, it is pertinent to note the observations and directions of the Hon'ble NCLAT in its Order dated 18th January 2023, relevant portions of which are reproduced hereinbelow: "26. We have gone through the whole Application filed by the Respondent No.2. There is not even mention of the fact that voting has already commenced w.e.f. 07.08.2022. The Adjudicating Authority without there being any valid reason ought not to have been interfered with the voting on the Resolution Plans which had already commenced w.e.f. 07.08.2022. As result of the order of the Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e NCLAT directed that the RP may initiate a fresh voting process on the Resolution Plans received in the process. The intention of the NCLAT was to allow the process to continue from the point it was disrupted. This can be seen from Paragraph 28, where it is observed that since the voting process had already commenced after due approval of the CoC in its Meeting held on 30 August 2022, the stalled voting process may commence afresh. Accordingly, the RP placed the Resolution plans received as on 18th July 2022 before the CoC for voting on 10th February 2023. This included the Plans of all four Prospective Resolution Applicants including that of Shyam SEL, without any modifications made post 18th July 2022. The voting was conducted thereafter....