TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... , Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Shruti Pandey, Ms. Shreya Mahalwar, Ms. Namrata Sarogi and Mr. Kartik Pandey, Advocates for R-1/RP Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Madhavi Khanna and Mr. Nihaad Dewan, Advocates for R-2 Mr. Sidhartha Sharma, Mr. Arjun Sharma and Ms. Shalini Bora, Advocates for SRA JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This Appeal by Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has been filed challenging the Order dated 04th January, 2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Court II, in I.A. No. 1054/KB/2023 by which Order, the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 3-Shriram Multico....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... resolution plan. Resolution Professional received revised signed resolution plan from thee other Resolution Applicants. On 19th May, 2023, the 13th CoC meeting was held in which CoC was apprised of receipt of revised final signed plan from three Resolution Applicants whereas final signed resolution plan was not received from the Appellant by 08th May, 2023. The signed resolution plan submitted by Appellant on 11th April, 2023 was considered for evaluation. It was decided that four resolution plan including the signed resolution plan of appellant dated 11th April, 2023 shall be put for voting in the next CoC Meeting scheduled for 24th May, 2023. One day before the CoC meeting i.e. on 23rd May, 2023, RP received an email by 10:52 PM by whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Resolution Professional and Mr. Gopal Jain for Respondent No. 2-J.C. Flower Asset Reconstruction Ltd. representative of CoC and Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Learned Counsel for SRA. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Impugned Order submits that the resolution plan approved by the CoC is not in accordance with law. It is submitted that resolution plan submitted by the Appellant as revised through email sent on 23rd May, 2023 had offered higher offer of Rs. 310 Crores as compared to the resolution plan of Respondent No. 3 but the CoC did not consider the higher value offered by the Appellant and approved the Resolution Plan of Respondent No. 3. It is submitted that constitution of CoC is also under challenge as RARE Asset Reconst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Adjudicating Authority against which Appeal has been filed by the Appellant which is pending. It is submitted that the allegations regarding the constitution of CoC are unfounded. It is submitted that Resolution Professional on account of valid reasons has taken a decision to oust the RARE Asset Reconstruction Limited from the CoC which decision of the RP was upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, thus, the submission of the Appellant that constitution of CoC is not valid has no basis. It is submitted that there is no averment or allegation that resolution plan approved, submitted by Respondent No. 3 is noncompliance of the provision of Code. It is submitted that approval of the resolution plan is in the domain of the decision of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whose plan was also considered and not approved by the CoC cannot be said to be aggrieved by the approval of the Resolution Plan of Respondent No. 3. It is well settled that commercial wisdom of CoC in approving the resolution plan is not to be interfered by the Adjudicating Authority in its judicial review and limited ground for interference with the resolution plan is only when resolution plan violates or is in non-compliance of Section 30(2) of the Code. The Appellant has no such right that its resolution plan should be approved by the CoC which proposition has already been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2019) 2 SCC 1. The Appellant has also filed an application being I.A....