TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Advocate with Ms. Misha, Mr. Siddhant Kant, Ms. Maulshree Shukla, Mr. Yugal Jain, Ms. Gayathri Balasubramanian, Ms. Diksha, Advocates for R-2 (CoC). Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Ms. Kiran Sharma, Ms. Manini Roy, Ms. Nandini Acharya, Ms. Pooja Chakraborti, Advocates for R-3. Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurav Jain, Advocate for AGI Greenpac Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Ms. Salonee Shukla, Advocates for Exclusive Capital Ltd. Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mudit Gupta, Ms. Sonali Jain, Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Advocates for Intervener. For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Misha, Mr. Siddhant Kant, Ms. Maulshree Shukla, Mr. Yugal Jain, Ms. Gayathri Balasubramanian, Ms. Diksha, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Shukla, Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Mr. Ritu Chaudhary, Mr. Ayush Jain, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Vikram Wadhera, Ms. Smriti Churiwal, Mr. Jaiveer Kant, Advocates for R-2 (RP). Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Ms. Kiran Sharma, Ms. Manini Roy, Ms. Nandini Acharya, Ms. Pooja Chakraborti, Advocates for R-3. JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. Compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. 6177 of 2023 filed by Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd., another Resolution Applicant as well as other Appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 29.01.2025 set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority as well as the order of this Tribunal approving the Resolution Plan of AGI Greenpac Pvt. Ltd. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as prior approval by the CCI as required by Section 31 has not been obtained by AGI Greenpac Pvt. Ltd., Resolution Plan could not have been approved. Hon'ble Supreme Court issued direction to reconsider the Resolution Plan of Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. and any other Resolution Plans which possessed the requisite CCI approval as on 28.10.2022. After the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on 30.01.2025, a show cause notice was issued by the IBBI to the Resolution Professional. In consequence of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.01.2025, the Resolution Plan of Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. was approved on 04.02.2025. On 07.03.2025, Respondent No.1, Operational Creditor filed Intervention Petition No.5 of 2025 seeking intervention as well as removal of the Resolution Professional. A W.P. (C) No.3065 of 2025- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Raghenth Basant, Learned Senior Counsel for the Intervenor (Promoter). We have also heard Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenor- HNG Industries Thozhilalar Nalasangam. 4. We shall notice first submission advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellant in Appeals filed by the Resolution Professional and Appeals filed by the Committee of Creditors. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant (Resolution Professional) challenging the impugned order submits that the Learned Judicial Member committed error in passing the order dated 30.04.2025 directing IBBI to remove the Resolution Professional relying on Sections 97 and 98 of the IBC which provisions are not attracted in CIRP under Part II whereas those provisions were only relevant for CIRP under Part III. The very basis of the order of the Judicial Member is erroneous and unfounded. It is submitted that the Learned Judicial Member in its opinion dated 30.04.2025 has also erroneously taken the view on bye-law 23A of Model Bye-Laws under Schedule II of the IBBI(Model Bye-laws and Governing Body of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulation 2016 by holding that as per Bye-Law 23, after suspension of AFA, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025 and nothing was required to be done by the Resolution Professional except to bring the approval of the Resolution Plan before the Adjudicating Authority for passing the necessary orders. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 16.05.2025 in the Review Petition has directed the completion of entire process within 6 weeks, but the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority tends to create a situation in which timeline fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are difficult to be complied with. The submission of the Counsel for the Respondent No.1 that the Appellant has no locus to file this Appeal is wholly misconceived. The directions have been passed by the Adjudicating Authority to the IBBI to remove the Appellant which can very well be questioned and challenged by the Appellant. It is submitted that the Resolution Professional is taking every steps to ensure the compliance of the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.01.2025 as well as 16.05.2025. Reliance on First Information Report filed against the Appellant is misplaced since neither any charge sheet has been filed nor any charges have been framed in any of the FIR. 6. Counsel for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd to ensure that the process is not completed within the time allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the Learned Judicial Member has taken an erroneous view in its opinion dated 30.04.2025 and further the Adjudicating Authority committed error in passing order dated 13.06.2025 which is unsustainable. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 has no locus to intervene in the CIRP and Intervention Application filed with motive to scuttle the CIRP. 7. Shri Joy Saha, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, the Operational Creditor who had filed the Intervention Petition No.5 of 2025 has supported the impugned order and submits that the Resolution Professional has no locus to file these Appeals. It is submitted that on suspension of AFA w.e.f. 30.01.2025 after issuance of show-cause notice issued by the IBBI on the complaints filed against the Resolution Professional with respect to the Corporate Debtor, Resolution Professional is clearly debarred from continuing as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the Respondent No.1 that the issue is fully covered by judgment of Madras High Court in "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aware of the suspension of the Resolution Professional and the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be treated to mean that the Supreme Court has permitted Girish Shriram Juneja to continue as Resolution Professional. 8. Shri Rishav Banerjee, Learned Counsel for Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. supported the submissions of the Appellant and submits that the Resolution Plan of Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. has been approved by the CoC on 04.02.2025 and after the order dated 16.05.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.06.2025. It is submitted that the 6 weeks' time has already expired on 27.06.2025. The Resolution Plan approval application needs to be taken and decided by the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that it is the CoC and not the Resolution Professional who has approved the Resolution Plan. Resolution Professional has no role except to place the Resolution Plan before the CoC. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 is raising the above objection at the instance of promoters of the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that the Counsel for the Respondent No.3 also adopt the submission made by the Appellant with regard to entitlement of the Resolution P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal debt of the Corporate Debtor. As noted above, the CIRP process against the Corporate Debtor had commenced on 21.10.2021. In the CIRP process, the Resolution Plan of AGI Greenpac Pvt. Ltd. was approved on 27.10.2022 which was approved by the Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 28.04.2023 against which several Appeals were filed with this Tribunal which Appeals were dismissed by judgment and order dated 18.09.2023 challenging which order further Appeals were filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.6177 of 2023 titled as "Soneko Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v/s Mr. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors." with other Appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeals vide judgment and order dated 29.01.2025 in "Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors.- (2025) 5 SCC 209" with other Appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the Resolution Plan of AGI Greenpac Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that prior approval of the CCI was not obtained. It is useful to extract paragraphs 152 and 153 which is as follows:- "152. Therefore, a balance between the need for expeditious relief and adherence to the statutory framework must necessarily be maintained, in order to e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court requires to be quashed and set aside (iii) Whether Resolution Professional is debarred to continue with pending/existing assignments and replacement of resolution professional is required? 13. On Point No.(i), Learned Judicial Member held that the applicant has right to intervene in the present matter. On Point No.(ii), Learned Judicial Member held that the entire action of Respondent except approval of the Resolution Plan of AGI Greenpac Pvt. Ltd. which has already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, could not be set aside as prayed in the instant application. On Point No.(iii), Learned Judicial Member after referring to Sections 97 and 98 of the IBC, judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of CA. V. Venkta Sivakumar(Surpa), judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Kairav Anil Trivedi (Supra) and clause 23A of Bye-Laws came to the opinion that there is automatic suspension of Authorisation of Assignment of Resolution Professional upon initiation of disciplinary proceedings then the resolution professional should not be allowed to continue even with the pending assignment which finding has been returned in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, all other prayers become infructuous. The instant application is accordingly stands disposed of." 16. There being difference of opinion between Judicial Member and Technical Member, on same day i.e. 30.04.2025 another order was passed making a reference to the President. Order dated 30.04.2025 making reference is as follows:- "1. The matter was heard and kept for orders on 30.04.2025. 2. There is a difference of opinion between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) in regard to intervene in the CIRP of Corporate Debtor being CP (IB)No 369/KB/2020. 3. The point of issue on which the Members have differed is whether a party can seek a relief to intervene in the Company Petition which is already admitted vide admission order dated 21.10.2021. The difference of opinion is also on account of whether a party can seek various relief in the intervention application directly linking to the company petition vis a vis the entire CIRP and not linking his grievance/s to a particular application or by filing separate application, which defeats the whole purpose/nature of "intervention" types of application. 4. Let the matter be referred to the Hon'ble President, NCLT, Principal B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble President, NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi for appropriate orders." (Emphasis Supplied)" 19. Hon'ble Third Member in paragraph 13 of the judgment noticed two points on which opinion of Third Member is sought. Paragraph 13 of the order is as follows:- "13. However, as per the reference made to me by the Hon'ble President, the issues on which my opinion is sought is restricted to the following two points: i. Whether a party can seek a relief to intervene in the Company Petition which is already admitted vide admission order dated 21.10.2021; ii. Whether a party can seek various relief in the intervention application directly linking to the company petition vis a vis the entire CIRP and not linking his grievance/s to a particular application or by filing separate application." 20. Both the above Points No.(i) and (ii), as noticed above, were answered by Learned Third Member in affirmative. Point No.(i) was answered in paragraph 24 in following manner:- "24. In the wake, the issue (i) i.e. whether a party can seek a relief to intervene in the Company Petition which is already admitted vide admission order dated 21.10.2021, is answered in the affirmative." 21. With ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive. 37. It is made clear that I have only expressed my opinion on the two legal points to which the Hon'ble Members of the Division Bench have different views. I have not opined on the merits of the reliefs which have been sought by the Applicant in the captioned intervention application since the same are not the point of reference made to me. It is for the Hon'ble Members of the Division Bench to adjudicate on such reliefs. It goes without saying that due deference needs to be shown to the Order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition no. 657 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 6071 of 2023." 25. The opinion given by Third Member dated 10.06.2025 was placed before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority passed order on 13.06.2025 disposing of Intervention Petition No.5 of 2025. It is useful to extract the entire order dated 13.06.2025 which is as follows:- "IVN.P(IBC)/5 /KB/2025 1. We were having difference of opinion on the question framed by us in this instant intervention application no. IVN.(IB)/05/2025. In view of the difference of opinion between us, the matter was placed before Hon'ble President for hearing on point of dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....point no.(i) and (iii), the present application stands disposed of". 28. On Point No.(i) i.e. "Whether the applicant has the right to intervene in the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor", there is a clear majority opinion i.e. opinion given by Learned Judicial Member in its order dated 30.04.2025 and opinion given by Third Member in order dated 10.06.2025 that applicant has right to intervene. In view of the aforesaid decision on Point No.(i) was in accordance with majority. However, the order dated 13.06.2025 proceeds on the premise that there is majority view on Point No.(iii). Point No.(iii), as noted above, was "Whether Resolution Professional is debarred to continue with pending/existing assignments and replacement of resolution professional is required?" On Point No.(iii), we have already noticed that in the reference order dated 30.04.2025, Point No.(iii) was not included as point of difference between the parties. Learned Technical Member has held that applicant had no locus to intervene in the matter and other prayers were held to become infructuous, thus, there was negative opinion expressed on Point No.(iii) by Technical Member. The Third Member vide its opinion dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Member and Third Member the only prayer (a) was allowed. There was no majority opinion on prayer (b) which is Point No.(iii). Thus, it is held that there is no majority opinion with respect to Point No.(iii) i.e. on prayer (b). The order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 13.06.2025, thus, has to be held to confine to prayer (a) i.e. grant of leave to Respondent No.1 to intervene. Prayer (b) cannot be held to be granted. We, thus, answer Question No.(i) in the following effect:- There was no majority opinion on Point No.(iii) (Whether Resolution Professional is debarred to continue with pending/existing assignments and replacement of resolution professional is required?), hence, the Intervention Petition No.5 of 2025 could not have been disposed of on any majority opinion on Point No.(iii). Question No.(II) 30. Learned Judicial Member in its opinion dated 30.04.2025 has held that suspension of authorization for assignment of the RP shall debar the RP to continue with pending/ existing assignments, hence, direction was issued by learned Judicial Member in paragraph-48, directing the IBBI to replace the present RP, by another RP to conduct CIRP as per provisions of law. The dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsolvency professional agency shall make bye-laws consistent with the model bye-laws specified by the Board under sub- section (2) of section 196." 33. Section 205 of the IBC mandates the Insolvency Professional Agency to make bye-laws consistent with the model bye-laws specified by the Board under sub-section (2) of Section 196. Section 196, sub-section (2) provides as follows: "196(2) The Board may make a model bye-laws to be adopted by the insolvency professional agency which may provide for - (a) the minimum standards of professional competence of the members of insolvency professional agencies; (b) the standard for professional and ethical conduct of the members of insolvency professional agencies; (c) requirements for enrolment of person as members of insolvency professional agency which shall be non- discriminatory; Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause, the term "non-discriminatory" means lack of discrimination on the ground of religion, caste, gender or place of birth and such other grounds as may be specified; (d) the manner of granting membership; (e) setting up of a governing board for the internal governance and management of insolvency profession....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....36. The Authorisation for assignment under the Bye-Laws is defined by Bye-Law 4 (aa), which is as follows : "4(aa) "authorisation for assignment" means an authorisation to undertake an assignment, issued by an insolvency professional agency to an insolvency professional, who is its professional member, in accordance with its bye-laws;" 37. There can be no two opinions about the consequences provided in Bye-Law 23A regarding suspension of the Authorisation for assignment upon initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In the present case, authorisation for assignment of RP Shri Girish Siriram Juneja, stands suspended with effect from 30.01.2025, when show-cause notice was issued by the IBBI. The question to be answered is, whether the suspension of authorisation for assignment would debar the RP from taking any fresh assignments or by virtue of Bye-Laws 23A, the RP is statutorily debarred from continuing with pending/ existing assignments also. Learned Counsel for the RP and CoC have relied on IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 and IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017, relevant provisions of which need to be noticed to discern the statutory scheme on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... professional, who is its professional member, in accordance with its bye-laws;" 41. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that Regulation 7A has no relevance, since it is completely silent about the authority of the RP to continue with existing assignment. The legislative scheme apparent from Regulation 7A provides that expiry of authorisation shall not affect the assignment, which RP is undertaking, i.e. on the date of expiry of the authorisation. Thus, the existing assignment shall not be affected by expiry of authorisation, which is clear intendment of the above Regulation. 42. Another Regulation, which learned Counsel for the RP and learned Counsel for the CoC has placed reliance is the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017. The above Regulations provides for inspection, investigation and consideration of Report. Regulation 13(3) deals with 'Disposal of show cause notice'. Regulation 13(3) contemplates various kinds of order, which will be passed while disposing of the show- cause notice. Regulation 13(3) is as follows: "13. Disposal of show cause notice. (3) The order under sub-regulation (1) may provide for- (a) closure of show cause notice wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nary proceedings by issuance of show- cause notice. Thus, when the suspension by way of penalty, does not contemplate automatic debarment from existing assignments, suspension under Bye-Law 23A, cannot be read to mean that suspension under Bye- Law 23A, shall automatically debar the RP from continuing with existing assignments. The statutory scheme reflected by the above Regulations as noticed above, thus, indicate that Bye-Law 23A has to be read to mean that on suspension of authorisation of assignment, no fresh assignment can be taken by the RP. 46. Now, we come to the three judgments of Madras High Court, Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court relied on by learned Counsel for the parties. The judgment of Madras High Court, which is first in point of time, which is reported in (2024) SCC OnLine Mad 158 - CA V. Venkata Sivakumar vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and Ors.. The above was a Writ Petition filed by CA V. Venkata Sivakumar seeking a declaration that provisions of Section 204 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the IBC are ultra vires with the Constitution. Another Writ Petition was filed for declaring the Bye-Law 23A of the IBBI (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be read into a provision of ad interim suspension. 6.3. Of course, any suspension, if prolonged, without any inquiry being proceeded with, would cause stigma. But the larger public interest and the laudable purpose behind the rule of suspension and the relative hardship had to be balanced. Only to avoid hardships, normally swift and prompt completion of the process of disciplinary proceedings is insisted upon. Therefore, the petitioner or any other aggrieved professional can only insist upon prompt completion of the proceedings and the hardship cannot be a ground for challenging the very regulation itself. 6.4. Accordingly, finding no infirmity, we uphold the constitutional validity of bye-law 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016." 48. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed much reliance on observation made in paragraph 6.2, where the High Court has stated that purpose of suspension is to immediately keep the erring person away from the office, so that the relevant materials and evidence which are on record be properly collected and that there is an impartial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant for considering the challenge as raised in the writ petition are that the petitioner is presently registered with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India ("IBBI") as an insolvency professional ("IP"). This registration is granted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, through its deputy general manager issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on October 26, 2023 under section 219 of the Code read with regulations 11 and 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017 ("2017 Regulations"). In the show-cause notice, reference was made to an investigation report that was submitted by the investigating authority. On the basis of the said investigation report, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why action should not be taken to cancel the petitioner's registration as an insolvency professional. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice and denied the allegations made therein. Further proceedings in that regard are pending....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is an impartial and fair enquiry in the issue. Therefore, the requirement of issuance of show-cause notice cannot be read into a provision of ad interim suspension. Of course, any suspension, if prolonged, without any inquiry being proceeded with, would cause stigma. But the larger public interest and the laudable purpose behind the rule of suspension and the relative hardship had to be balanced. Only to avoid hardships, normally swift and prompt completion of the process of disciplinary proceedings is insisted upon. Therefore, the petitioner or any other aggrieved professional can only insist upon prompt completion of the proceedings and the hardship cannot be a ground for challenging the very regulation itself. Accordingly, finding no infirmity, we uphold the constitutional validity of bye-law 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016." 51. The Bombay High Court has expressed its agreement with the judgment of Madras High Court in CA V. Vankata Sivakumar. The Bombay High Court ultimately held that Regulation 23A is valid and show-cause notice issued to Writ Petitioner, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard of India and Ors. -W.P. (c) No.3065 of 2025 has been relied by learned Counsel for the RP and the CoC is relevant to be noticed. The judgment of the Delhi High Court was delivered in the Writ Petition filed by HNG Industries Thozhilalar Nala Sangam, which is a registered Union of the workers of the CD, who had filed the Writ Petition assailing a communication dated 30.01.2025, by which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Insolvency Professional - Girish Siriram Junega and authorisation for assignment had been suspended. In the Writ Petition filed by HNG Industries Thozhilalar Nala Sangam, the High Court also heard the Counsel for the IBBI. The judgment of the Delhi High Court is a short judgment running in six paragraphs. It is useful to notice the entire judgment, which was delivered by the Delhi High Court on 12.03.2025, which is to the following effect: "1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing a communication dated 30.01.2025 in terms of which the respondent no.1/ IBBI has, inter alia, directed as under: "2. However, in view of the prima facie observation in the matter, disciplinary proceedings under section 219 of the Insolvenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BI) precludes the RP from undertaking any new assignments; the same does not prevent him from continuing with any existing assignments. The said statement of the learned Counsel was taken on record. In view of the above statement of the IBBI recorded by the Court, the Writ Petition was withdrawn. 55. Against the order passed by Madras High Court dismissing the Writ Petition of CA V. Venkata Sivakumar, a SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, upholding the order of the Madras High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that Bye-Law 23A is constitutionally valid. As noted above, the judgment of the Madras High Court was not on the issue, which has arisen for consideration in the present Appeal. Hence, no such ratio was laid down in the said judgment, which is sought to be relied by learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 in support of his submission. It is further relevant to notice that learned Judicial Member in its opinion dated 30.04.2025 has relied on Sections 97 and 98 of the IBC for issuing directions to remove the RP. Sections 97 and 98 are Part-III of the IBC and are not applicable with regard to CIRP under Part-I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 29.01.2025, large number of Review Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to review the judgment. A Review Petition was filed by AGI Grrenpac Ltd. (Review Petition No.657 of 2025) including Review Petition by Exclusive Capital Ltd. (Diary No.11154 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No.6071 of 2023) - one of the Financial Creditor, who had also filed Review Petition, raising the issue of suspension of the RP, were dismissed on 16.05.2025. It is useful to extract paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.05.2025 passed in Review Petition No.657 of 2025, which are as follows: "3. The Majority Judgement under review in paragraph no. 155.3 issued direction in the following terms: "Consequently, the CoC shall reconsider the Appellant's Resolution Plan and any other Resolution Plans which possessed the requisite CCI approval as on 28.10.2022 i.e., the date on which the CoC voted upon the submitted Resolution Plans." 4. We have taken note of the submissions made by all the learned senior counsel appearing in the matter. We propose to place on record the statement of Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel, that Independent Sugar Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Plan has unduly directed the replacement of the RP, which is not in accordance with the law, as we have already held in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. 60. We may notice one more aspect at this stage. It has been pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. and is also not denied by learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that learned Judicial member has recused himself from proceedings on 24.06.2025. We fail to see any justification by learned Judicial Member in recusing himself from proceedings at a stage when under the order dated 16.05.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Adjudicating Authority was obliged to consider the application for approval of Resolution Plan and decide the same. However, recusal and attending circumstances being not before us, we need not say anything more except that on account of recusal of learned Judicial Member, the President has to constitute an appropriate Bench for considering the application for approval of Resolution Plan, as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.05.2025, if not already constituted, forthwith. 61. Question No.(II) is answered in following manner: Suspension of authorisation....