2025 (7) TMI 1717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sh Kumar Gupta, RP in person ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) Heard Shri Sumant Batra learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the RP and also learned counsel for the appearing for the Committee of Creditors. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-IV by which order the IA No. 4291/ND/2024 was partly allowed. 3. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal are, the Section 7 application was admitted against the Corporate Debtor M/s Earth Buildprop Private Limited by order dated 13.05.2019, after publication of Form-G resolution plan was submitted by appellant which came to be approved with 75.45% vote share on 11.06.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d herein: "This Tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2025 recorded that despite giving undertakings the Successful Resolution Applicant has not taken any steps to file an affidavit as directed vide order dated 12.12.2024. Even today the affidavit is not on board. Chance to file the affidavit is closed" On perusal of the record we find that despite giving ample opportunity to the SRA, to place an affidavit on record it has failed to produce the same. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the Resolution Plan did not meet the requirements of Section 30(2)(d) of IBC, 2016 r/w the IBBI Regulations for the following reasons: a) non-fulfilment of requirements regarding "feasibility and viability of the Plan' under Regulation 38(3)(b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ider the short comings in the plan and place before the CoC for reconsideration. 2. It is submitted that appellant asked for 15 days' time to submit addendum which was denied whereas the request for other PRAs were accepted. It is submitted that order did not permit the RP to invite plans from others PRA and direction was only to reconsider the plan submitted by the appellant. 3. We find substance in the submission of the appellant, direction in paragraph 9 of the adjudicating authority was to reconsider the plan submitted by the appellant reflecting on the short comings in the plan as referred to in the impugned order. 4. Thus the RP and CoC was entitled to consider the plan of the appellant and at that stage it was not required t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....diction in the CoC to proceed to invite other plans and approve another resolution plan. It is submitted that the CIRP timeline has already come to an end. 7. Ld. Counsel for the RP and the CoC submitted that after Committee of Creditors considered the plan of the appellant and having not approved with 100% vote share it was in the power of CoC to proceed further to approve another resolution plan for resolution of the corporate debtor and plan having already been approved by the CoC and plan approval application have been filed before the Adjudicating Authority, being 42 of 2025 which is pending consideration and the remedy of appellant, if any, is to file appropriate objections before the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that orde....