2026 (1) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es for R1. ORDER This appeal is filed by the appellant, the successful resolution applicant, against the order dated 07.05.2025 passed in IA no.2960 of 2023 in CP IB No.406 of 2018 thereby rejecting the resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The said IA was an application for approval of a resolution plan filed by the Resolution Professional. 2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in para 22 of the impugned order found the Resolution Plan was hit by Section 29(A)(g) of the Code. It is argued the said finding is incorrect as the impugned order fails to observe that to attract Section 29A(g) of the Code both ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssional certifying the Plan does not suffer from any ineligibility under Section 29A(g). Further the certificate issued by the Resolution Professional also notes:- "I state that I have searched the IBBI web portal and did not find any information to believe that Mr. Rajesh Singla is a promoter or in the management or control of a Corporate Debtor in which a preferential transaction, undervalue transaction, extortionate credit transaction or fraudulent transaction has taken place and in respect of which an order has been made by the Adjudicating Authority under IB Code, 2016. However, an application under Section 43 of the IB Code, 2016, was filed, which has been disposed off on 02.09.2022, as a sum of Rs.24.17 lacs has been recover....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant the plan was Section 29A(g) compliant and its dismissal on ineligibility was wholly illegal. 7. In Hari Babu Thotha, Civil Appeal No.4422/2023, decided on 29.11.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:- 7. Insofar as Clause (g) is concerned, it is pointed out that only one preferential transaction was identified by the appellant but no order was passed by the adjudicating authority as on the date of the impugned order. xxx 23. Thus, even on this count, the plan submitted in question will not incur the disqualification. We may also note that the aforesaid intent is reflected in the statutory provision itself that in Section 29A(c) which begins with "at the ....