TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh Srivastava, Mr. Rama Kant Rai, Mr. Shivam Wadhwa, Advocates for R-1/(RP) Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Madhav V. Kanoria, Ms. Srideepa Bhattacharyya and Ms. Neha Shivhare, Advocates for R-2. Mr. K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Ms. Priyashree Sharma, Mr. Shivansh Agarwal and Mr. Krishnan Agarwal, Advocates for Intervenor in I.A. No. 1214/2024 Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocates with Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Hancy Maini, Mr. Varun Khanna, Mr. Devang Kumar, Mr. Manisha Singh and Ms. Namrata Saraooh, Advocates for R-3 JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN , J. These three Appeals have been filed against the Order dated 06.10.2023, passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court IV). 2. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1395-1397 of 2023 have been filed against the Order dated 06.10.2023 passed in I.A. 3399/2023 and I.A. 3336/2023 as well as in I.A. No. 2794/2023 in C.P.(IB)-893(MB)/2021. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1445 of 2023 has been filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in I.A. 3336/2023 in I.A. 2794/2023 in C.P.(IB)-893(MB)/2021. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1535/2023 has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceed and the Resolution of the Resolution Plan. 7 Plans were put for voting. E-voting was conducted for approval of the Plan from 28.05.2023 to 08.06.2023. On voting result dated 08.06.2023, the Resolution Plan of SEML as amended read with addendum dated 10.05.2023 was approved with 100% vote shares. xv. On 08.06.2023, RP issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) to SEML who was called upon to submit Performance Guarantee of INR 150 Crores. xvi. On 12.06.2023, SEML unconditionally accepted the LoI and submitted Performance Guarantee of INR 150 Crores in favour of Bank of Baroda (BoB). xvii. On 17.06.2023, RP filed an I.A. No. 2794/2023 before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of SEML Plan as approved by the CoC. xviii. On 20.06.2023, RP informed Torrent Power Ltd. and other Resolution Applicants about the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. xix. The Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) received from other Resolution Applicants were refunded by the RP. xx. I.A. 2794/2023 was heard by the Adjudicating Authority and by order dated 10.07.2023, reserved for orders. xxi. On 01.08.2023, I.A. 3336/2023 was filed by Vantage Point Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution Plan is circumscribed by Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (for short `the Code') and legislature has not endowed the Adjudicating Authority with the jurisdiction or authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial wisdom of the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority is required to evaluate the plan on the touchstone of Section 30(2) read with Section 31 of the Code. Adjudicating Authority is not required to examine the correctness of the decision taken by the CoC, as the decision to approve the Resolution Plan lies solely with the CoC in their commercial wisdom. 11. In the present case, Adjudicating Authority undertook exercise in analysing the interpretation of financial data before the CoC including comparison on the terms of the Resolution Plan/addendums and clarifications and review of the emails, evaluation matrix, CoC minutes etc. Adjudicating Authority undertook its own assessment of how various Resolution Plans should have been scored on the Evaluation Matrix. Adjudicating Authority undertook its own analysis and assessment of what should or should not have been considered by the CoC in the upfront amounts offered by Resolution Applicants. Adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een pleaded nor contained in the I.A. 3399/2023, Adjudicating Authority decided to remit the approved Resolution Plan to the CoC for considering of all other plans which stood rejected by CoC with 100% vote shares. 17. Adjudicating Authority without giving any opportunity to the CoC, RP and SRA to explain the various terms in the Resolution Plan of the SRA came to incorrect assumption that relevant data was not placed by RP before the CoC. Adjudicating Authority substituted the commercial wisdom of CoC with its own assessment and in the understanding of the Resolution Plan the assessment and evaluation taken by the Adjudicating Authority is ex-facie incorrect and contradictory. Adjudicating Authority has made incorrect conclusion that SEML proposal only relate to INR 122.23 Crores of Margin Money and INR 58.08 Crores was not accruing to the Financial Creditor. 18. No clarification from RP or Process Advisor was sought by the Adjudicating Authority. Adjudicating Authority finding that equity value was not assigned by the review in the scoring of Resolution Plan of two PRA was again an incorrect assumption by the Adjudicating Authority. 19. On the Affidavits filed by the RP ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prior to the stage of the commercial wisdom of the CoC and has steered away from the issue of commercial wisdom of CoC. Impugned order has been passed after Adjudicating Authority came to a finding that decision making process followed by CoC was perverse. It is submitted that intervention is warranted by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal when decision of the CoC is wholly capacious, arbitrary and irrational. When the decision is arrived at by not knowing the material, such a finding is perverse and is amenable to interference by Adjudicating Authority. 22. On the submission of the CoC and RP to substantiate their stand relying on 34th Meeting of the CoC held on 18.10.2023 pursuant to the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority where CoC has arrived at the same conclusion and found the finding of the Adjudicating Authority to factually inaccurate, it is submitted that any subsequent Resolution of the CoC as alleged in Meeting dated 18.10.2023 cannot cure the deficiency as noticed by Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. It is further submitted that Minutes of the Meeting dated 18.10.2023 has not been placed on the record of this Tribunal, hence t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Plans with the comments of Process Advisor were placed before the CoC, financial data placed before the CoC was neither incorrect nor wanting in any manner. The observation of the Adjudicating Authority that incomplete financial data was placed by the RP is wholly erroneous and without any basis. The CoC in its Reply, filed in this appeal has also affirmed that RP or its Legal Advisor has not placed incomplete financial data. It is submitted that Adjudicating Authority has recorded inaccurate finding regarding replacement of 100% margin, by Bank Guarantee. Impugned order wrongly determined that equity offered by Jindal Power Limited and Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd. should have been valued by an addendum to such amount and scoring should have been carried out accordingly. It is submitted that after reserving the order by the Adjudicating Authority, application filed by Torrent Power Ltd. and Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd. ought not to have entertained and the Adjudicating Authority was to consider the averments and pleadings in the application. Opportunity ought to have been given to the RP to file its Reply and explain the process. 31. In accordance with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd to the treatment of BG are incorrect and against the record. Adjudicating Authority has also made incorrect observation regarding treatment of upside equity offered by Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd. and Jindal Power Ltd. As far as evaluation of equity offered to Financial Creditors is concerned, the same was to be assessed and marked separately in the Evaluation Criteria at Item 4. The Evaluation Matrix does not provide for any fair valuation of equity upside or to consider equity value as part of upfront consideration. Adjudicating Authority has wrongly noted in Para 8.19 that the evaluation criteria considered the equity upside offered to the financial creditors within 6 months as upfront cash. It is submitted that application of Intervention filed by Jindal Power Limited need to be rejected since no application was filed by Jindal Power Ltd. before the Adjudicating Authority and at this stage in this appeal, the Jindal Power Ltd. cannot be allowed to intervene or to seek any relief in its intervention application. 35. Learned Counsel for the Intervenor, Jindal Power Limited submits that the JPL's Resolution Plan is among the Plans found feasible and viable by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings in IA-2794/2023." 38. The Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd. was one of the Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant whose Plan was not approved. The application I.A. 3336/2023 has been rejected by the impugned order. 39. The application filed by Torrent Power Limited was I.A. 3399/2023, in which application following prayers have been made: "a) to pass an order directing the First Respondent to serve a complete copy of the Plan Approval Application, along with all the annexures to the Applicant; b) to defer the pronouncement of orders in the Plan Approval Application until the adjudication and disposal of the present Application; c) to grant liberty to the Applicant to file its objections in the Plan Approval Application, if any, pursuant to reviewing the Plan Approval Application; d) to keep the Plan Approval Application in abeyance until the Applicant has reviewed the Plan Approval Application and filed its objections (if any) in the said Application." 40. The Torrent Power Limited was also one of the Resolution Applicant who has submitted the Plan, which Plan was considered and voted and not approved. 41. Before we proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by only INR 5 Crores; and (b) as per the Newspapers Report, Vantage and the Applicant emerged has the 2 (two) highest bidders in terms of the aggregate commercial offer made in terms of the Final Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicants on 28 April 2023 whereby the Aggregate Commercial Offer of Vantage was only INR 7 Crores higher than that of the Applicant, it appears that the Vantage was the H1 Bidder during the course of the Negotiation Process and that the Applicant was the second highest bidder during the course of the Negotiation Process. In light of these fact, the Second Respondent at best offered the third highest offer in terms of the Key Commercial Terms submitted by it during the course of the Negotiation Process. 5.42 It is submitted that during the Negotiation Process, the commercial offer made in the H1 Bid was displayed to the Resolution Applicants. The Applicant recollected that entire commercial offer of the Applicant was proposed to be paid by way of upfront payment of INR 2,000 Crores (including CIRP Costs) without consisting of any deferred payment component. The Applicant also recollected that H1 Bid proposed aggregated to a total comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y deferred payment component, is most likely to have been declared the successful resolution applicant." 44. It is further stated that Torrent Power Limited has also pleaded in the application that Torrent Power Limited is not aware of the value of the commercial offer of the SEML. In paragraph 5.47, it was stated that Resolution Plan by SEML was approved by CoC despite the second respondent offering the third highest aggregate offer. In paragraph 5.47, following has been pleaded: "5.47 It is reiterated and humbly submitted that it is inexplicable that the Resolution Plan submitted by the Second Respondent was approved by the CoC despite the Second Respondent offering at best the : (a) third highest Aggregate Offer in its Final Resolution Plan submitted on 28 April 2023; and (b) the third highest commercial offer during the Negotiation Process. In view of these facts, it appears to the Applicant that the Second Respondent had an additional opportunity to modify and increase its commercial offer during the course of the CIRP such that the commercial offer of the Second Respondent becomes higher than that offered by the Applicant; even though to the best of our knowledge,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 present. Mr. Madhav Kanoria a/w Ms. Surbhi Parekh i/b Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Ld. Counsel for the CoC present. Mr. Gaurav Joshi Ld. Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Nishant Sogani, Mr. Saurabh Bacchawat Ms. Shrishti, Ld. Counsel for the Successful Resolution Applicant present. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti a/w Mr. Somesh Srivastav and Ms. Apoorva Chandekar, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/RP present. 2. IA 3399/2023 is filed by M/s Torrent Power Limited, and IA 3336/2023 is filed by Vantage Point Asset Management Private Limited Both the Applicant are unsuccessful Resolution applicants in the Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor and seeks direction for consideration of their plan afresh after providing another opportunity to offer better value. The Counsel for the Applicants takes us through the documents and pleads that there seems to a bias in evaluation process at the far end. The Counsel for the Applicant in IA 3336/2023 submits that its offer for higher amount, than offered by Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), given to RP, was not considered after approval of plan of Successful Resolution Applicant, after approval of plan by CoC. The Counsel for Applicant in IA 3399/2023 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are of the considered view that after taking into account the amounts, which got omitted by the Process Advisor, the above scores would also undergo change. Accordingly, any decision based on incorrect data is bound to be perverse and not fair, notwithstanding, that the COC may have decided exactly what they decided, even if updated financial numbers would have been placed before them. 8.19 This Bench could not find the rationale for not including the fair market value of upside equity in the financial proposals placed before CoC before the voting, and why the value of upside equity website was not considered as a part of upfront amount while the valuation criteria considered the equity upside offered to the financial creditor within 6 months as upfront cash. 8.20 We find that the BDO has considered amount paid towards replacement of BGs as money being offered to Secured Financial Creditors, which is not in conformity with the minutes of meeting dated 06.05.2023, which recorded the deliberations taken place at that meeting as "The representative of SBI mentioned that all the Bank Guarantees are secured by 100% cash margin. Bank Guarantees do not form part of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Reply which was filed by RP in this appeal. It has been pleaded by RP in paragraph 10 of the reply that at the time of hearing conducted of the Plan approval application or the I.A. filed by Torrent Power Limited and Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd., scoring as per the Evaluation Matrix and the analysis of BG Margin were never raised. It is useful to extract para 10 of the Reply of the RP which is as follows: "10. It is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal while making observations against the Respondent No. 1 and the legal advisor of the Respondent No. 1 did not provide any opportunity to the Respondent No. 1 or the legal advisor of the Respondent No. 1 to clarify the correct factual position. The issues pertaining to treatment of BGs/ Margin Money, scoring as per the evaluation matrix and the analysis of BG margin were never raised argued upon or tested before the Hon'ble NCLT during the hearings conducted in the Plan Approval IA or in the application filed by TPL and Vantage. No clarifications were sought by the Hon'ble NCLT from the RP or the CoC in this context. Thus, the observations made by the Hon'ble NCLT in this context have not been made in accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or oral pleadings of the parties. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority erred in coming to a finding that certain information was not placed before the CoC while approving the resolution plan of the Appellant without even asking for any such clarification from the parties before it and the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, merely on the basis of certain assumptions and presumptions came to an incorrect finding of fact and consequently on the basis of that incorrect finding rejected the application for approval of Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Code. The issue was neither highlighted in any of the pleadings nor argued before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Even IA 3399 merely states Torrent's allegation that it was offering the highest upfront amount without going into the issues relating to treatment of margin money, bank guarantee or equity upside." 55. From the materials on record and pleadings of the party as noted above, it is clear that order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 06.10.2023 is on the findings which are not based on any pleadings raised by Torrent Power Limited and Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd. in their application. Torrent Power Limited and Vantage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irected the RP to file the process note, Minutes and correspondence. An Affidavit was filed by the RP dated 20.08.2023, with regard to which there was no opportunity to any other party to make their submission or response. 60. As noted above, both Torrent Power Limited and Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd. has filed Additional Affidavit in their application on 06.09.2023 and 04.09.2023, which is apparent from the record, which affidavits were filed after closing of the hearing on 07.08.2023. The process adopted by the Adjudicating Authority was not in consonance with the Principles of Natural Justice. Consideration of any material subsequent to closing of the hearing without giving opportunity to other side to comment or to give a response is bound to prejudice the interest of other sides. 61. Thus, we find substance in the submission of the Counsel for the Appellant that process adopted by the Adjudicating Authority in proceeding to allow I.A. 3399/2023 has violated the Principles of Natural Justice. No notice was issued in the application, no reply was called on the applications and while allowing the said application the entire plan which was approved has been remit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst judgment, which is relied by the Appellant is judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. - (2019) 12 SCC 150. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is intrinsic assumption that Financial Creditors are fully informed about the viability of the Corporate Debtor and feasibility of the proposed Resolution Plan. Reliance is placed on paragraphs 52 and 64, which are as follows: "52. As aforesaid, upon receipt of a "rejected" resolution plan the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is not expected to do anything more; but is obligated to initiate liquidation process under Section 33(1) of the I&B Code. The legislature has not endowed the adjudicating authority (NCLT) with the jurisdiction or authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial decision of CoC much less to enquire into the justness of the rejection of the resolution plan by the dissenting financial creditors. From the legislative history and the background in which the I&B Code has been enacted, it is noticed that a completely new approach has been adopted for speeding up the recovery of the debt due from the defaulting companies. In the new approach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any direction in relation to the exercise of commercial wisdom of the financial creditors - be it for approving, rejecting or abstaining, as the case may be. Even the inquiry before the appellate authority (NCLAT) is limited to the grounds under Section 61(3) of the I&B Code. It does not postulate jurisdiction to undertake scrutiny of the justness of the opinion expressed by financial creditors at the time of voting. To take any other view would enable even the minority dissenting financial creditors to question the logic or justness of the commercial opinion expressed by the majority of the financial creditors albeit by requisite per cent of voting share to approve the resolution plan; and in the process authorise the adjudicating authority to reject the approved resolution plan upon accepting such a challenge. That is not the scope of jurisdiction vested in the adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the I&B Code dealing with approval of the resolution plan." 67. Next judgment relied by learned Counsel for the Appellant is Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. vs. Monitoring Committee of Reliance - (2021) 10 SCC 623, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 44 laid down follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt laid down under Section 31(1) of the Code, for which a reasoned order is required to be passed. We may state that the NCLT's jurisdiction and powers as the Adjudicating Authority under the Code, flow only from the Code and the Regulations thereunder. It has been held in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v NBCC (India) Limited, (2022) 1 SCC 401: '273.1. The adjudicating authority has limited jurisdiction in the matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is well-defined and circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Code. In the adjudicatory process concerning a resolution plan under IBC, there is no scope for interference with the commercial aspects of the decision of the CoC; and there is no scope for substituting any commercial term of the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. If, within its limited jurisdiction, the adjudicating authority finds any shortcoming in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters, it would only send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors, for re-submission after satisfying the parameters delineated by the Code and exposited by this Court.' (emphasis supplied)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btor and put it again on the track. When a Resolution Plan, has been approved after due deliberations, in exercise of commercial wisdom of the CoC, it has to be accepted that Corporate Debtor was decided to be revived by the Resolution Plan. The mere fact that certain other offers have been received after the approval of the Resolution Plan, CoC cannot have a change of heart and start clamoring before the Adjudicating Authority that they have no objection to sending back the Resolution Plan for reconsideration. This will be permitting an unending process, since by passing of time situation keeps on changing. After coming to know about the financial offer in a Plan, which has been approved by the CoC, any subsequent offer by any entity, who did not participate in the process earlier, cannot be entertained." 72. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in PNC Infratech Limited vs. Deepak Maini and Ors. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.143 of 2020, where this Tribunal held that there is no mechanism under the Code that gives right to the Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant to challenge the decision of CoC, unless the Plan is in contravent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Shri Kapil Sibal, however, submits that there are two other grounds on which Adjudicating Authority can interfere, i.e. a ground of discrimination and perversity. Shri Sibal has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in Darshak Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chhaparia Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - (2018) SCC OnLine NCLAT 224. The judgment in Darshak Enterprises has also referred to and relied by Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order, hence, we may need to notice the above judgment. The judgment of Darshak Enterprises was a case, where Appeal was filed by Operational Creditor against the order of Adjudicating Authority, where Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan. The challenge to the Plan by the Operational Creditor was on the ground that the Resolution Plan has not taken care of the total outstanding dues of the Appellants and out of the total dues 5% of the principal amount has been allowed in favour of the Appellant. This Tribunal by the impugned judgment has dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Following observations were made in paragraph-6 of the judgment, which are as follows: "6. In these cases as we fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under heading 'Point D1 - Revision of resolution plan after approval by CoC'. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after approval of the Plan by the CoC, the Plan was modified without it being placed before the CoC for fresh approval, which was one of the grounds taken by the Appellate Tribunal in interfering with the order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above context in paragraph 159, 160, 162 and 168 laid down following: "159. Even when the findings of the Appellate Tribunal as regards valuation process and non-compliance of other procedural requirements have not been approved by us, a material factor which otherwise may appear to be of another procedural requirement, has its significant bearing and cannot be ignored as mere technicality. It is concerning want of presentation of finally revised plan to the Committee of Creditors before being presented to the adjudicating authority. 160. As noticed hereinbefore, commercial wisdom of CoC is given such a status of primacy that the same is considered rather a matter non-justiciable in any adjudicatory proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in that regard could be ignored or condoned. As stated above, when commercial wisdom of CoC is assigned primacy, it presupposes a considered decision on the resolution plan in its final form." 76. Shri Kapil Sibal has placed reliance on the observation made in the above judgment that commercial wisdom of CoC would come into existence and operation only when all the relevant information is available before it and is duly deliberated upon by all its Members, who have direct and substantial interest in the survival of Corporate Debtor and the entire CIRP. In the facts of the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that CoC Meeting was held on 21.01.2021 and the Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant-resolution applicant was approved, however, approval came with a significant condition that in view of the dissent by some of the Financial Creditor, the Plan would be sent back to the creditors for further revision, so as to make it compliant with Section 30, sub-section (2), which provides that amount paid to the dissenting Financial Creditor will not be less than the amount to be paid to such creditors in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Code. The rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manian & Anr.', the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case was considering the appeal against an order of this Tribunal, which has set aside an order of Adjudicating Authority approving a Resolution Plan. In the above case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that financial statements and data are examined by domain and financial experts. It was further observed that it is rather strange to argue that the super specialists and financial experts were gullible and misunderstood the details, figures or data. Following observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15: "15. Resolution plans are not prepared and submitted by lay persons. They are submitted after the financial statements and data are examined by domain and financial experts, who scan, appraise evaluate the material as available for its usefulness, with caution and scepticism. Inadequacies and paltriness of data are accounted and chronicled for valuations and the risk involved. It is rather strange to argue that the superspecialists and financial experts were gullible and misunderstood the details, figures or data....." 79. One more judgment, which has been relied on behalf of Torrent Power Limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the understanding of the appellant about the legal effect of the propositions put forward by him, which included the modification of the term of plan from 180 days to 90 days. Such a proposition could not have been treated as formal or innocuous or of no material bearing." 81. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that certain key features/ stipulations of the Resolution Plan were sought to be amended by the Appellant. It was held that modification being permitted at the request of the Appellant, no fault can be found in the order of the Adjudicating Authority, giving opportunity to respective parties. The above judgment also does not help the Torrent Power Limited in the present case. 82. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the present case, discrimination was made qua the other Resolution Applicant, since the Appellant Sarda was given an opportunity in guise of seeking clarification to pay Rs.240 crores upfront payment, which was earlier not proposed. The said submission of discrimination was also pressed before the Adjudicating Authority at the time of hearing of the Application. The RP and the CoC have pleaded in their replies that under the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of natural justice, consequent to which order, the matter needs to go back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. We in view of the aforesaid, refrain ourselves from recording any findings on the respective submissions of the parties regarding incomplete data or perversity in the process, as sought to be contended on behalf of the Torrent Power Limited. 84. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that a distinction has to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors. - (1999) 2 SCC 10. In paragraph 10 of the judgment, following has been laid down : "10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use 4.1.8 of RFRP, which clearly provided that the CoC is under no obligation to any of the Resolution Applicant to approve the Resolution Plan, which has secured the highest value as per the Evaluation Matrix and any Resolution Plan shall be approved solely on the basis of CoC's commercial wisdom. To the same effect is Clause-9(c) and 9(d) of the Process Note dated 12.04.2023, where the CoC has reserved its right to evaluate the compliances of Resolution Plans and accept or reject the Resolution Plans. 87. As observed above, we have already taken a decision to set aside the order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration, it is not necessary for us to return a finding on the various contentions raised by the parties on merits of the decision and the grounds. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority may take a fresh decision on the Plan approval Application as well as the Application filed being IA No.3336 of 2023 and IA No.3339 of 2023. We having noticed that no opportunity was given to the SRA, RP and CoC in respect of the IA Nos.3336 and 3339 of 2023, to obviate the delay in disposal of the matter, we allow two weeks' time to the SRA, RP and CoC to file their....