TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant /Company submits 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 pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In fact, the 'Liquidation Value' was mentioned as Rs. 166 crore and Mr. Santha 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 Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f fact in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that 'I&B' Code, 2016 will not apply to the 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 day....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atlal 1997 (1 SCC 579) (Vide para 29), wherein it was observed that the 'Court', cannot scrutinise and find out 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 8&9 herein, without even informing the stakeholders about the same. By doing so, it has thereby led to the potential Resolution Applicants quoting 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 Compani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndency of the 'Applications', filed by the answering Respondents but the procurement of the 2nd report by the Respondent No. 7/ Liquidator, subsequently, still does not demonstrate 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 '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Companies Act, 2013 should harmoniously work along with the object and purpose of the I&B Code, 2016 and Regulations. 41. Also, that the valuation of the property at Rs. Zero, is against the ingredients of Section 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R-1 to 6 cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. V. Swwapnil Bhingardevay and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0672/2020 wherein at paragraph 19 & 38 it is observed as held as under: "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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1 to 6 that the 'violation of the confidentiality' by circulating the 'Liquidation Reports', had compromised the 'sanctity of the process' and further, if the 'impugned order' passed by the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal is not affirmed by this Tribunal, then the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of more than 75%, for the scheme to be an operational one and brought to force, in addition to the other conditions being fulfilled. 57. According to R1 to R6, the 7th Respondent / Liquidator had not taken the 'Approval of the Secured Creditors', to bring to the effect of the ingredients of Section 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o R6 are the 'major stakeholders' of the Corporate Debtor in Liquidation, with a claim to the tune of 571.50 crores dues and recoverable from the 'Liquidation process' and where 'members of the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate' Debtor during the 'CIRP process', holding a total voting share of 98.68%. 64. 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 Liquidato....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not empowered to decide the 'feasibility' and 'viability of the scheme' and declare someone as an 'H1 proponent', without the concurrence of 'stakeholders consultative committee'. 71. The plea of the 7th Respondent / Liquidator is that the instant Appeal proceedings, are an 'abuse of process of law' and are only an arm-twisting 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 deadl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a sum of EMD of Rs. two crores which was deposited by it. 77. The stance of the 8th Respondent is that the 'Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal' had permitted the liquidator through an order dated 12.02.2021 to begin fresh negotiations with prospective bidder namely the 8th Respondent and the Appellant. Indeed, the 'Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal' 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 1^st 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to the 8th Respondent, the 'Liquidator' cannot take an 'Adversarial view', in such matters, as the interest of the 'Corporate Debtor' and the 'maximisation' of value of corporate debtor is paramount. There are no 'counter claims' disputing the inclusion of Rayagada property in the Liquidation Estate. 86. The Learned counsel for 8th Respondent points out that 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 567.59 crore and were members of the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP process, holding a total voting share of 98.68%. 90. As a matter of fact, the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor was ordered by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, Chennai Bench on 29.05.2020 and the stakeholders consultation committee was constituted and secured creditors came to conduct the 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 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the land and building conducted by Mr. R. Chandran, instead of the same being conducted holistically on the entire assets of the Corporate Debtor. In reality, the revised valuation 'is in negation' to the established procedure under the I&B Code, 2016. 96. According to the 1st Respondent / IDBI Bank Ltd. & Ors. (petitioners in IA 255/IB/2021 in CP/1307/IB/2018, although the petitioners/secured creditors 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only Rs. 159 Crores which was subsequently increased to Rs. 207 Crores (by Rs. 48 Crores) based on the negotiations Held by the liquidator. 101. The plea of the 1st Respondent / erstwhile Liquidator is that the efforts towards the scheme of compromise' began with the liquidation order passed by this Tribunal, on 29.05.2020 and from June, 2020 till April, 2021, for nearly ten months, the Petitioner was in complete approval 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Corporate Debtor was put to a loss of around Rs. 1000 crore because of the fact that Raygada Asset Value is shown as nil in the fresh valuation ordered by the Liquidator. 108. The version of the 1st Respondent / erstwhile Liquidator is that knowing pretty well that the average of two valuations is the mandate to decide the liquidation value, he had later requested another set of valuers to do the valuation independently and further 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 'indepe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2021, since it is not a part of the stakeholders consultation committee and further the proviso clause Regulation 31A of IBBI (liquidation process) Regulation, 2016 mandates that a secured Creditor who had not relinquished its security interest u/s 52 shall not be part of the consultation committee. 117. Continuing further, the 3rd Respondent had wrote a letter dated 29.07.2020, addressed to the Liquidator had articulated to realise its security interest 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aled from the records of J.S. Co. Ltd., that, the JS.Co. Ltd., is in possession of lands as per the R.O.R. to an extent of Ac. 784.90 in 13 numbers of Mouza (Revenue villages). But they are in physical possession of Ac. 565.75. They have already surrendered the lands to the State of Odisha to an extent of Ac. 117.96 and others (Rayagada People) have occupied to an extent of Ac. 101.19. There are numbers of cases relating to the lands of J.S.Co. Ltd., from 1974. At present situation no Sugar Company and ferrow-manganese factory is running on the land 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence, the Realisable/Liquidation value of assets of JSCo currently stands as Rs. 1.66 crore." 125. The Erstwhile Liquidator, who had filed the Asset Memorandum on 21.09.2020, had not included the 'Raygada Property Assets' but arrived at a 'realisable value' of 217.52 crores. 126. The valuation of the Raygada Property with a market value of more than Rs. 1000 crore as mentioned by the Liquidator / 7th Respondent was valued at Rs. Zero by the erstwhile liquidator without adhering to the mandatory requirement of Regulation 35 of IBBI (liquidation process) Regulations, 2016. Even the second value report secured 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otential Resolution Applicants by the 7th Respondent / Liquidator is quite contrary to the Regulation 34 (4) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process Regulations), in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. 134. One cannot remain in oblivion of a prime fact that the aforesaid 'Regulations' read in conjunction with Regulation 21 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals Regulations, 2016) unerringly points out that an Insolvency Professional is to ensure that information to be of confidentiality in character pertaining to the Insolvency Resolution Process, liquidation or 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., holding the 'Liquidation Estate', in the interest and for the benefit of 'stakeholders', is to take into consideration as to which/what are all the properties? do form part of the 'Liquidation Estate'. By adhering to the ingredients of Section 36(3) of the I&B Code, 2016, the 'Registered Valuers', are to 'value' the property. 141. In the instant case, the Erstwhile Liquidator had not obtained the valuation from the second valuer and that the liquidation value was arrived at only by one valuer. Also that the erstwhile liquidator had gone for a fresh valuation which clearly points out that Regulation 35(2) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 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 proces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ensation in respect of the ceiling surplus land at 'Rayagada Property' considering the extent of 5096.69 acres, in the teeth of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, in WP(C )4490/2015. Hence it is incumbent and on the part of the 7th Respondent/Liquidator to act in terms of the I&B Code, 2016 and Liquidation Regulation. 149. It can not be over emphasised, that the 'aim of the I&B Code, 2016' is for maximisation of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and all endeavours ought to be taken, with a view to resurrect/revive the company. Viewed in that perspective, the 'Rayagada Property' is to made as a part and parcel of Asset Memorandum, 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 'Sta....