TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Adv. Ms. Neha Shivhare, Adv. Mr. Sumit Attri, Adv. M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Divyanshu Rai , AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pb Suresh, Adv. Mr. Sivaramakrishnan Ms, Adv. Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Ishwar Singh, Adv. Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Vinay N Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shaurya R Rai, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Madhav Kanoria, Adv. Ms. Srideepa Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Neha Shivhare, Adv. Mr. Sumit Attri, Adv. M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, AOR M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR JUDGMENT 1. Leave Granted. 2. These appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution are against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka exercising power of judicia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or representing the suspended director, Mohd. Farouk Darvesh was present, and he confirmed that "they have no objection to the plans or to the process that was followed." We may mention at this very stage that this fact is opposed by Mr. Shyam Divan, Ld. Senior Counsel representing the suspended director of the corporate debtor. Be that as it may, the resolution professional is said to have issued notice to the suspended directors of the corporate debtor on 11.02.2020, including respondent no.1, that the meeting will be held at 3.00 pm. 4. While the appellant contends that the second adjourned 19th COC meeting was convened after notice to all, Mr. Shyam Divan has submitted that no such notice was ever received by his client. In the meeting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2022. 7. It is in the above said background that first respondent approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing the writ petition seeking quashing of Minutes of Meeting dated 11.02.2020, letter of intent dated 09.03.2020, declaration of respondent no.1 as successful resolution applicant, direction to the CoC for acceptance of its proposal dated 07.12.2022 and for setting aside of Minutes of Meeting dated 21.12.2022, wherein the CoC Members had unanimously rejected the settlement proposal of respondent no.1. It is apparent from these prayers that the main grievance of the respondent no.1 was with respect to the decision of the Minutes of Meeting dated 11.02.2020, out of which all other orders and decisions have emanated. 8. The High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. ( 1998 ) 8 SCC 1 Secondly, he specifically referred to the provisions of the Code and in particular to Section 12(A) of the IBC 2016, read with Regulation 19 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Through his short note of submissions, he would further submit that by contrasting the amounts submitted as per the information memorandum, it would be clear that the offer made by the resolution applicant is much inferior to the proposal made by the first respondent under Section 12(A) of the Code. Finally, he sought to clarify that there is no delay in filing the writ petition as the contest raised by Swamitva Consortium was pending between the cause of action....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adopt. We may hasten to add that it is not necessary for us to enter into the merits of the matter to examine the amounts offered by respondent no. 1 and to contrast with the offer made by the applicant. 13. The jurisdiction and power of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(c) has already been reiterated by this Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta ( 2020 ) 8 SCC 531 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta ( 2021 ) 7 SCC 209. It is important to note that CIRP proceedings commenced on 26.10.2018, six years ago, and the resolution plan of the appellant was approved in 2020, four years back. The importance of concluding the CIRP proceedings was highlighted by this Court, o....