TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmits that the 'Rayagada Property' was included in the 'Valuation Report' submitted during CIRP process and further that the valuation conducted during CIRP process include the 2nd valuation report on land and buildings and the '2nd valuation report', was on 'plant and machinery'. 2. According to the Appellant the 'valuation report', during 'CIRP Process', is mentioned as under in a tabular form:- Valuation Report during CIRP Process 29.05.2019 Land and building Valuation Report Submitted By Chandran (Pg. - 504,900) 30.05.2019 Land and Building Valuation Report by Sugumar (pg. 637) 18.04.2019 Plant & Machinery valuation by Jayaraman (Pg. 642) Plant & Machinery valuation by Santha Kumar (Pg. 643) 3. It is represented that the appointment of these 'valuers', was acknowledged in the 'third CoC meeting' (vide pg. 719 of Appellant's Appeal Paper Book, para 3a) and slight modification with respect to 'plant and machinery valuation', was submitted by Santha Kumar was suggested by the 'Committee of Creditors', considering the closure of factories (vide para 3(b)(ii). 4. Added further, it is projected on the side of the Appellant, that during the 'Fourth Committ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ha Kumar had valued the 'plant and machinery' at Rs. 57.11 crore. 10. Apart from that, the second set of 'revised valuation' was secured and there was a delay in the 'process', because of prevailing COVID 19 restrictions during that period. In fact, the Land and Building report was given by Mr. Poovanan and in fact the valuation of plant and machinery was done by Mr. Karthikeyan of Veracity Associates. 11. The main contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant, is that the 'Rayagada Property', was included in the audited financial statement dated 31.03.2020 and the value of the said property in the valuation was changed to nil, based on the direction of the 'Committee of Creditors'. 12. Besides this, the property' was considered as 'Liquidation Estate' but valued as nil, based on legal opinion and the direction of the 'Committee of Creditors'. As such, the 'Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal' had mentioned that the 'Rayagada Assets', were not included in Liquidation Estate being misconceived and the failure of appreciating of what is meant by the 'Liquidation Estate'. 13. The stand of the Appellant is, that the value of the 'Rayagada Property' was not changed, ever since the 'Liq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proceedings under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (vide para 91, 92, 95 and 97.) 19. Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant adverts to Section 230(2)(v) of the Companies Act, 2016 which prescribes only a valuation by a 'registered valuer' and there is no requirement of 'two valuers' under the Companies Act, 2013. The plea of the Appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal had failed to consider the scheme of compromise as per Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 and on behalf of the Appellant, a reference is made to the scheme of compromise' as per Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 and specifically to the companies (Compromise, Arrangement and Amalgamation) Rules, 2016 particularly Rule 3(1), Rule 6(3)(v)(c) with explanation, and Rule 9. Also that the liquidator despite envisaged under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, the 'Liquidator' also complied with the Regulation 35 of the I&B Code, 2016. 20. The contention of the Appellant is that in respect of 'Fresh valuation' Liquidator would have appointed valuers, within seven days of commencement of 'Liquidation Process'. In the instant case, according to the Appellant, the 'Liqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t whether 'better scheme' could be adopted and it should be left to the 'shareholders'. 25. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that in similar case of Jaypee Industries V. NBCC (vide Paragraphs 170, 171, 280), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had addressed all the infirmities and no fresh process was ordered. 26. The pleas of R-1 to R-6 The Learned Counsel for R-1 to R-6 submits that R-1 to R-6 are the major stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor 'in Liquidation' with a claim to an extent of Rs.571.50 crores due and recoverable from the liquidation process holding a total voting share of 98.68%. 27. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to R-6 points out that pursuant to the Corporate Debtor being order to be liquidated by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal, the Respondent No. 7/Liquidator had called for an invitation of expression of interest for proposing a scheme for compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Called and referred to as 'scheme') pursuant to which, the Appellant/ M/s Kineta Global Ltd., was declared the H1 Bidder by the Liquidator/Respondent No. 7, as against the requirements of Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. 28. According to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting offers much below the old liquidation value of Rs.332.52 Crore, thereby severely undervaluing the assets of the CD, which ultimately goes against the principle of maximization of assets as envisaged by the Code. (iv) That the manner in which the revised valuation, which was conducted by the registered valuers, namely, Mr. Shanthakumar and Mr.R.Chandran, who were appointed by the Respondent No.7/Liquidator on the Assets of the CD, was not in accordance with the procedure established under Regulation 35(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. (v) That consequently, the Respondents sought for a direction to set aside the improper process adopted by the Respondent No. 7/Liquidator for valuation of the 'Assets of the Corporate Debtor', amongst other reliefs. 31. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to R-6 bring to the notice of this Tribunal, that IA/ 256/IB/2021 was filed by R-1 to R-6, seeking to intervene raised their objections in the Section 230 Application of the Companies Act, 2013, filed by the 7th Respondent/Liquidator in CA/861/2021 and these application were allowed on 17.11.2021 by the 'Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal' and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....monstrate the compliance of the Regulations, for the under mentioned reasons. (i) Regulation 35 of the Liquidation Regulations contemplates that the report be procured simultaneously from two independent registered valuers on the realizable value of the assets or business under clauses (a) to (f) of Regulation 32 of the Corporate Debtor. However, in the present case, as elaborated in detail in the pleadings, the Liquidator has procured only one report on the plant and machinery and another report on the land and building, which is in gross derogation of the procedure contemplated under the Regulations. (ii) Further, the said valuation done was without (including a 'Prime Asset of the Corporate Debtor', in Rayagada, Orissa State. (iii) That additionally, the Respondent No.7/Liquidator had also shared these 'Draft Valuation Report' to the Potential 'Resolution Applicants', including the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 to 9 herein. 37. It is the submission of R- 1 to R-6 side, that the 'conclusion' arrived at Paragraph 40 of the impugned order by the 'Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal' that the 7th Respondent/Liquidator had not complied with the procedure as required under the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 36 (3) (e) of the I&B Code, 2016 and mere cursory glance of the Section 36 (3) (e) of the Code clearly points that the Assets subject to the determination of ownership, by the Court or Authority shall form part of the Liquidation Assets, which would thereby include the Lands of the 'Corporate Debtor in Rayagada'. But the order of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court dated 16.03.2022 passed in WP No. 4490 of 2015, unerringly points out that 'in terms of the order' passed, in the aforesaid 'writ petition' that compensation is to be provide as which was confirmed, later by the liquidator/ Respondent No. 7 through its email 16.03.2022, which would imply that the 'valuation' ought to be conducted 'a fresh' and 'fresh schemes', to be called for. Indeed, as per the impugned order at Paragraph 33 it was clearly recorded that the 7th Respondent/ Liquidator, while submitting the Asset Memorandum on 21.09.2020, had not included the said Asset, as part of the 'Asset Memorandum' and had arrived at value of Rs. 217.52 crores. 42. The plea taken on behalf of R-1 to 6, is that the Liquidator/Respondent No. 7 had circulated the 'valuation reports' of the Corporate Debtor, which includes confidential ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."19. It is true that in the last paragraph of the impugned order, namely paragraph 14, the Appellate Tribunal holds that the CIRP suffered from material irregularities and the Resolution Plan approved suffers from feasibility and viability. But then the operative portion of the impugned order does not take the findings on other issues to their logical end. For instance, the Tribunal holds that the advertisement inviting Expression of Interest itself was defective and that there was breach of confidentiality in as much as the liquidation value appears to have been leaked out. These findings should have taken the Appellate Tribunal to the point of setting aside the entire process and directing the Resolution Professional to start the process all over again from the stage of issue of a fresh advertisement. The NCLAT did not do so. In the operative portion, NCLAT merely remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority with a direction to send back the Resolution Plan to the Committee of Creditors to resubmit the plan after taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court. 38. ........The question of breach of confidentiality and leakage of confidential information can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant, being the 'H1' bidder and who had offered Rs. 207 crores/- as its 'bid' in comparison, the 'Asset valuation' which is worth more than Rs. 1000 crores, as mentioned by the Liquidator / 7th Respondent, will be against the object of the Code, which is to ensure that maximisation of the value of 'Assets of the Corporate Debtor' is achieved. 51. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 refers to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 4490/2015 wherein the order was passed that the Corporate Debtor' has a right to compensation, over the ceiling surplus of lands at 'Rayagada Property' to an extent of 506.690 acres. 52. According to the Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 side, the relevant portion of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 4490/2015 runs as under:- "5.....The Petitioner -Company is entitled to the amount in respect of ceiling surplus land to an extent of Ac. 506.690 decimal. 7. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since ceiling surplus land has already been determined, immediate steps should be taken by the authorities under the Act to compute ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 230 Scheme under the Companies Act, 2013. However, the said 'scheme' was thrusted to be accepted by R1 to R6, without heeding to the genuine concerns of the Respondents. 58. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 places reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal in Ramesh Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. V. Anu Agarwal & Ors., (vide Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 957 of 2021), for the proposition that the Section 230(2) Procedure under the Companies Act, 2013 should be complied with, provided it is not in derogation of any other law, including the I&B Code, 2016. 59. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 points out that the object of the I&B Code, 2016 is for the maximisation of the value of the Assets of the Corporate Debtor, which is paramount and that all steps are to be taken to revive the Company as per decisions in Maharashtra Seamless Limited V. Padmanabhan Venkatesh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4242 of 2019, 2020 SCC Online SC 67; Binani Industries Ltd. V. Bank of Baroda & Another (CA (AT)(Ins.) 82/2018 & Others; Lal Mohammad and Ors. Vs. SU KAM Power System Ltd. and Ors. (29.04.2019 - NCLAT) : MANU/NL/0177/2019; K Kuppusamy V. State Bank of India and Ors. (08.08.2019) - NCLAT : MANU/NL/0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... According to the R1 to R6, the subject, 'Applications' along with other pending 'Applications' in the subject CP 1307/2020, including the Application of the liquidator / 7th Respondent, for proposing the 'scheme' under Section 230 application (under the Companies Act, 2013) viz. CA 816 of 2021 was listed for 'Hearing', on numerous occasions, and all the interested parties, including that of the Appellant, who was represented by the Counsel was present and at no point of time, chose to object to the Application filed by the Respondents and finally, the 'impugned order' came to be passed by allowing the Applications. 65. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6 points out that when the 'valuation' itself, is 'fundamentally flawed', then, the reasons for the 'delay in valuation' will be an 'irrelevant one' and it will not in any way overcome the 'wrongful actions of the Liquidator'. 66. The Learned Counsel for R-1 to 6, contends that the 'impugned order' at paragraph 33 had clearly recorded that the 'Asset Memorandum' furnished by the 'Liquidator', on 21.09.2020 had not included the property of the 'Corporate Debtor' in 'Raygada' and that he had arrived at a 'realisable value of Rs. 217.5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wisting practice, to consider the Appellant's proposal alone. 72. The stand of the 7th Respondent / Liquidator is that the 'erstwhile Liquidator' had completely ignored the views expressed by the 'stakeholders consultative committee/Secured Lenders'. Also, that the erstwhile Liquidator had illegally classified the Appellant as an H1 proponent, without the concurrence of SCC/ Secured Lenders and he moved an application before the 'Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal' for an appropriate direction to consider the alleged scheme in violation of the process document. 8th Respondent's contentions 73. According to the 8th Respondent it made a payment of Rs. one lakh on 24.07.2020 and submitted its "Éxpression of Interest'' and the 1st Respondent/Bank acknowledged the receipt of payment on 30.07.2020. Also that the 1st Respondent/Bank advanced the deadline to submit the 'scheme proposal' from 25.09.2020 to 15.08.2020. That apart, the 1st Respondent/Bank, also advanced the time line for payment of earnest money deposit of Rs.2 crores from 25.09.2020 to 15.08.2020. Moreover the 1st Respondent had submitted the 'Information Memorandum', valuation Reports, and the provisional financia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal' had directed Synergy Holdings to satisfy the Liquidator about the genuineness of the Bank guarantee before the Liquidator can even consider the scheme proposal of the said prospective bidder. 78. According to the 8th Respondent, the proposed scheme of it was not placed by the Liquidator for the consideration by the 'Stakeholder Committee'. In the meanwhile, R2 to R7 before considering the scheme filed an IA 255/IB/2021 among other things, seeking a direction to the 1st Respondent/Bank to take steps, to include the property at Rayagada, Orissa and update the Asset Memorandum, as per Regulation 34 of the IBBI(Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. 79. According to the 8th Respondent, the Liquidator had shortlisted the candidate, who are prospective bidder for the purpose of submitting the proposed scheme and the 8th Respondent is one of them. The 8th Respondent continues to remain as an interested in the Corporate Debtor and its Assets. In fact the Liquidator during the pendency of Appeal, had disqualified the 8th Respondent by citing Section 29A of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 12.02.2021 had directed the Liquidator to conduct fresh negotiations b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the 8th Respondent is interested in transparent process of bidding and maximisation of value of assets of corporate debtor. The valuation exercise is to be undertaken, in respect of the assets of the corporate debtor, so as to enable the 'stakeholders' to have the benefit of 'liquidation value' which will act as a guide to 'Stakeholders' in taking a decision on the proposed scheme, to be submitted by the bidder. 87. The Learned counsel for 8th Respondent prays for an opportunity being granted to 8th Respondent by issuance of directions to the Liquidator, to participate in the Bid, with a view to enable the 8th Respondent to submit scheme in respect of the assets of the corporate debtor. Also that the liquidator is in possession of the EMD of the 8th Respondent and hence the 8th Respondent, may be permitted to submit its proposal. In any event, the instant Appeal, preferred by the Appellant is 'not maintainable in Law and on Facts'. In other respects, the 8th Respondent adopts the arguments of Learned counsel for R2 to R6. Appraisal 88. Before the Adjudicating Authority / NCLT, Chennai Bench the Petitioners / IDBI Bank Ltd. and 5 others had projected an IA 255/IB/2021 in IA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... joint lender meeting from 21.09.2020. 91. In fact, the 1st Respondent / Liquidator called for the invitation, for proposing a scheme for compromise or arrangement as per section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, to submit the Resolution Plans to the Liquidator on or before 25.08.2020. A revised valuation report was sought for by the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, with a view to reflect the financial position of the Corporate Debtor before the Committee of Creditors which was deliberated before the 1st meeting that took place on 26.08.2020. Before this, on 03.07.2020, an expression of interest was invited by the 1st Respondent / Liquidator from the interested Applicants to submit schemes of arrangement on the basis of the liquidation value arrived at by the revised valuation report for its revival. Later there were 9 Applicants who submitted a scheme by making a non-refundable deposit of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as application fee. 92. In the second COC meeting, the four Applicants out of the nine who submitted their proposal scheme made their presentation, on their proposal before the stakeholders and they were subsequently asked by the stakeholders, to revise their respective scheme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... do not have any objection in negotiating with either the R2 and 3 or any other eligible Resolution Applicant and are solely interested in the maximising the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, in the event that the negotiations were to be taken forward with R2 and R3 or R4, if found eligible as directed by this Tribunal dated 12.2.2021, the petitioners in IA 255/IB/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2018 submit that the said negotiations would not yield much result, considering the fact any proposal presented by the R2 and 3 or R4, if found eligible, would be on the basis of imprecise valuation presented by the 1st Respondent/Liquidator and may not be feasible for the petitioners to accept. Also, this process would accordingly not result in producing and realising the 'best valuation of the assets' of the Corporate Debtor and resultantly, would be detrimental to the interests of all the 'stakeholders' including the IDBI Bank Ltd. (Applicant) and that of the Corporate Debtor as well. In the event of reliefs sought for in IA 255/IB/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2018 are not granted, it will finally result in delaying and frustrating the resolution process of the Corporate Debtor, besides leading to i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roval and suddenly in April, 2021 when the matter was about to be concluded, filed IA 255/2021, thereby exposed to the 'Doctrine of Estoppel is based on the principle that it would unjust, if a person intentionally by conduct or in any other manner has induced other person to believe and act upon such a representation, neither he or those representing can in a subsequent Court proceedings deny the truth'. 102. It is projected by the 1st Respondent / erstwhile Liquidator that the Joint Lenders Forum lead by the Petitioner / IDBI Bank in their e.mail expressed their intention to exercise the option of selling the assets, secured by them u/s 52 of the Code, for exercising this option. The secured creditors must conduct 'fair valuation of theirs as per Section 52 of the I&B Code within 90 days. However, till date even after 360 days the IDBI Bank / Petitioner had not complied with the Regulations. 103. The 1st Respondent / erstwhile liquidator before the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal had prayed for the dismissal of the IA 255 of 2021. 104. It is the stand of the 1st Respondent / erstwhile liquidator that the 'liquidation value' of the assets of the Corporate Debtor situated at R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the second set of valuers had given their valuation, after inspecting the location of the Corporate Debtor. Apart from that the IDBI / Bank came out with IA 255/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2019 by looking at a 'draft valuation', not even on 'final Valuation Report'. 109. According to the 1st Respondent / erstwhile Liquidator, having ordered for two valuations to take the average of them as liquidation value, the grievance of the IDBI Bank that the procedure followed was an irregular one, had become an infructuous one and further the contention that two valuations were not taken into consideration to arrive at Liquidation value was not tenable any more, in as much the average taken was based on two independent values given by the two sets of the 'independent valuers'. 110. The erstwhile liquidator in IA 255/2021 took a stand that for discharging the functions as per Section 35(1) of the I&B Code, 2016 he was not under an obligation either to consult or abide by the suggestions of the stakeholders. As a matter of fact, the only obligation u/s 35(2) of the I&B Code, 2016 is that the liquidator, in case he consults any stakeholder he shall make that record available to other stakeholder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest as per Section 52 of the I&B Code, 2016 and had categorically stated that IDBI / Bank had not relinquished the security interest under the 'Liquidation Estate'. As such, the IDBI Bank cannot be a part of stakeholders consultation committee and it has no 'Locus' to contest the instant 'Appeal'. 118. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Jain Vs Standard Charted Bank 2019 20 SCC 455 wherein in respect of the interpretation of Regulation 21 it was held that there was no specific provision which states not to share the 'valuation report' and in fact all the concerned persons should be given an access to the documents, which will be crucial for deciding the work of the 'Corporate Debtor'. 119. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Coop Housing Society, Nagpur Vs Swaraj Developers and Other (2003) 6 SCC 659 wherein it was held that an Appeal is an continuation of the original proceedings and the provisions applied at the time of institution are considered to be operative even in respect of the Appeals and this is because of the fact there is a 'vested....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of JS Co. Ltd., and no lands are used for raising of sugarcane for JS Co. Ltd., except few members to watch and ward the waste materials of J.S. Co. Ltd. Nobody are working for J.S. Co. (Sugar Factory) and ferrow manganese factory. There is a dispute between the State & J.S. Co. Ltd., for no cause. So it can be sorted out, if J.S. Co. Ltd. will take a decision to mitigate the litigation. I have gone through all the documents of the J.S. Co. Ltd., and found that except few lands there are recorded in Rayagada Nagar all are agricultural land. In view of that these lands cannot be enforceable under SARFAESI Act. The lands are in dispute with the Government of Orissa. The Property is involved in OLR Proceedings with the Govt. under OLR Case No. 60/74 which is still pending before the Revenue Officer, Rayagada as the O.L.R. Proceedings are stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.C. No. 4490/2015 by the J.S. Co. Ltd.) There is no record before me (supplied by the J.S. Co. Ltd.) about the present status of the case in W.P.C. No. 4490/2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. It reveals from the records of the (supplied by the J.S. Co. Ltd., Rayagada) that the lands in question....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the 7th Respondent / liquidator does not exhibit the compliance of the Regulations because of the fact that in the instant case the liquidator / 7th Respondent had only obtained one Report on the plant and machinery and another report on the land and building which is in negation of the procedure as specified under the Regulations. In short, the said valuation was made, without including a vital asset of the Corporate Debtor. 127. The Erstwhile Liquidator had shared the 'Draft Valuation Report' to the 'Resolution Applicants including the Appellant and Respondent No. 8 to 9. 128. In reality, the valuer in the initial report had assessed the value of Raygada lands to be Rs. 1087.98 crores later based on the information furnished by the 7th Respondent / liquidator and resting upon the opinion furnished by the Learned Advocate, the liquidator came to the conclusion that the value of the Raygada lands should be decided as zero. Resultantly, based on the opinion of advocate, coming to the zero valuation was not approved by the Committee of Creditors / Stakeholders Consultation Committee. 129. It is pertinently pointed out by this Tribunal that the requirement of Regulation 35 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bankruptcy process and the same is to be maintained at all points of time. 135. It is to be remembered that the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP 4490/15 had passed an order to the effect that the Corporate Debtor as a right to compensation in respect of the 'ceiling surplus of Lands' after Raygada Property, to an extent of 506.690 acres. In fact, the Liquidator /7th Respondent in his e.mail on 16.3.22 addressed to R1 to R6 had mentioned that the Corporate Debtor is entitled to 281 acres whose guideline value is Rs. 600 crores with market value of more than Rs. 1000 crores(sic)''. Therefore, the 'Assets of the Corporate Debtor' are to be revalued by the 7th Respondent / Liquidator, in accordance with Regulation 35 of the Liquidation Process Regulations and the valuers are required to be appointed in terms of Regulations 35 and Rule 8 of the Companies (Regd.) valuers and valuation (Rules, 2017). No wonder, the 'valuation reports' are to be kept as confidential documents by the 7th Respondent / Liquidator. 136. It cannot be brushed aside that a fresh valuation is to be conducted with a view to benefit 'all the stakeholders' and then only, the Section 230 process under the Compani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulations, 2016 was not followed. The stakeholders' plea/request to go for a fresh set of valuations was not acceded to by the Erstwhile liquidator. 142. Dealing with the aspect of that the plea of the Erstwhile Liquidator, that the IA 255/IB/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2018 is not maintainable, in 'view of the fact that that 'Secured Creditors'' are having an option/alternative to turn down the 'proposal' by 'voting against the scheme' cannot be countenanced, in the eye of law, because of the fact, that the 'Secured Creditors' had assailed the process in which the scheme was projected before the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal, by not following the ingredients of the I&B Code, 2016 and there being 'no proper valuation of assets' being made in respect of the 'valuation of the assets', forming part and parcel of the 'liquidation estate'. 143. It is to be remembered in IA 255/IB/2021 in CP 1307/IB/2018, on the file of the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, Division Bench II, Chennai, the 'Rayagada Property', is to be valued and to be included in the Liquidation Estate. Also that to find out the exact/precise price of the said property, the same is to be valued, and in the absence of the same, one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and a Fresh Valuation of the Assets of the Corporate Debtor, has to be done, as per procedure, prescribed by law and looking at from this perspective, this Tribunal, unhesitatingly, holds that the Bid furnished by the Appellant remains as an exercise in futility. 150. As a logical corollary, the conduct of 'Fresh Valuation Process' is the 'fair', 'just' and 'inevitable one' and then only, the process under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 can begin afresh and the same being placed for getting, an Approval from the 'Stakeholders Consultation Committee'. 151. Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is quite broader and wider in its 'purview' and the I&B Code, 2016 and its Regulations are not to be 'brushed aside' and that the 'Scheme', under Section 230 of Companies Act, 2013 is to be read in an harmonious manner, without causing any volatile damage/harm, being caused to the language employed therein, as opined by this Tribunal. 152. Although the Appellant has come out with a plea that as per Section 61(1) of the I&B Code, 2016 any 'aggrieved person' has a right to prefer an Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal, and further that a Litigant has a 'vested right' to avail the ....