TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)2023 in CP (IB) 203/AHM/2020 whereby certain adverse remarks have been made by Ld. Adjudicating Authority precisely in paragraph no. 74, 84, 85 and 87 of the impugned order. 2. Necessary facts required for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the CIRP against the CD was commenced vide order dated 29.03.2022 of the Adjudicating Authority passed in CP (IB) No. 203 of 2020 and the appellant herein was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and he made the public announcement on 02.04.2020. 3. It is further reflected that after filing of the claims by the creditor the CoC was formed by the IRP comprising of 11 financial creditors and the first meeting of the CoC was held on 28.04.2022 wherein the aforesaid IRP was appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP). 4. It is further reflected that in pursuance of the issuance of Form G, Twelve Expression of Interest (EOI) were received and a final list of 12 Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRA's) was issued by the RP on 17.07.2022, out of which 9 PRA's complied with the conditions of EOI and the final list of 9 PRA's was prepared and also Mr. Ram Niwas Dhoot who is the Promoter of the CD was also considered eli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07.2023, the meeting of the CoC was adjourned at the request of the participants asking RP to circulate brief note in terms of Regulation 39 (3)(b) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and thereafter 14th CoC meeting was held on 31.07.2023, to consider the email sent by the one PRA i.e. Mr. Ram Niwas Dhoot and his request was accordingly rejected. In the same meeting of the CoC the RP asked the CoC to consider fresh publication of Form G before considering liquidation of the CD, however the same was rejected as the extended period of 487 days was coming to an end on 31.07.2023, IA No. 987 of 2023, was moved by the Resolution Professional before the Tribunal for passing necessary orders and it is with regard to the disposal of the said IA No. 987 of 2023 and the other IA's mentioned herein before, the aforesaid remarks were made by the Ld. Adjudicating authority against the appellant and aggrieved by the same the instant appeal has been preferred. 12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no occasion for the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to have recorded adverse remarks/observations against the appellant without taking into consideration that the appellant has constantly dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RP has not canvassed for the acceptance of any Resolution Plan and have merely articulated the provisions of the Code and the CIRP Process Regulations and only informed the CoC of its options for the purpose of taking a decision for the betterment of the CD and the same cannot be considered as canvassing. 19. It is further submitted that the appellant is having an unblemished record and the adverse remarks recorded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority being not commensurate with the factual aspect of the case would bring a bad name to the otherwise good reputation of the appellant and the same are liable to be expunged or modified. 20. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/COC while relying on the reply filed by it before this appellate tribunal submits that so far as the adverse remarks recorded in para no. 74 and 84 of the impugned order are concerned, the RP had filed all applications including those seeking extension of CIRP as and when instructed by the CoC. 21. It is also submitted that in the 8th meeting of the CoC held on 21.12.2022, the Resolution Plans were to be put to vote, however as the discussions with the Resolution Applicant was ongoing the CoC decided that the fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and none of the Resolution Plan was approved and in 13th meeting of the CoC held on 10.07.2023, owing to the confusion among the members of the CoC the appellant invited the members to submit their views and the members in turn agrees to vote on the Resolution Plans and appellant also urged for the completion of the voting till 17.07.2023. 27. It is further submitted that in the 14th meeting of the CoC held on 28.07.2023, the appellant informed the CoC about the scheme of Regulation 39 (3) (b) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 informing that in case none of the Resolution Plan is approved, the one receiving the highest votes has to be put for vote again. The CoC however decided to discuss the matter internally and requested the appellant to circulate a note to enable the said discussion. 28. It is also submitted that the appellant only articulated the provisions of the Code and relevant Regulations as and when requested by the CoC and despite his efforts none of the Resolution Plan was approved. 29. It is also submitted that since the issue is with regard to the adverse remarks recorded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority against the RP, the same is not adversarial, however the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he RP has belatedly filed the applications seeking extension of the CIRP period and at times when the extended period of CIRP sought was already over and as such in our view the RP was lax in pursuing the extension applications. 85. In fact, we clearly find that RP was lax in the matter of even filing the progress reports. Only 4 such reports were filed during the entire period of 487 days, one of which certainly was filed at the time when he was the IRP. Even the liquidation application was filed after 41 days from the date of rejection of the plan by COC. In our view such application should have been filed not later than 7 days from the decision of the COC. These issues are for IBBI to examine and we direct the Registry of this Tribunal to forward a copy of this order to IBBI for information and necessary action, if any. 87. From the records placed before us and as recorded herein above, Applicant in IA 993 of 2023 has revised his resolution plan 3 times and again once the voting was over. Regulation 39(1A) of the IBBI (Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016 permit revision in the Resolution Plan only once. We observe that the Applicant has r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2023 seeking the approval of the CoC and thereafter the application was affirmed and e-filed on 13.07.2023. 34. From the above observation of the Adjudicating Authority made in para no. 66 of the impugned judgment and also from the contention of the Appellant in his Appeal, it appears that the physical copy of the IA No. 942 of 2023 was received in the office of the Tribunal on 16.08.2023. Thus, it may be safely concluded that the meeting of the CoC which has been called by the appellant/RP on 10.07.2023 may very well be convened at an earlier date as it was in the knowledge of RP that the extended time of the CIRP was going to expire on 01.06.2023 or even the CoC members may be requested to vote on the agenda of extension of time and certainly the hard copy of the application appears to have been filed with delay. 35. Similarly, in para no. 68 of the impugned order Ld. Adjudicating Authority has observed with regard to IA No. 1097 of 2023 that the same was affirmed on 01.07.2023 and was physically received in the Registry of the Adjudicating Authority on 18.09.2023. Likewise, in para no. 71 and 74 it is observed with regard to IA No. 1098 of 2023 that this application was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty bound to submit periodical reports of the progress of the Resolution of the CD. Thus, we hold that this observation of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is not substantiated from the established facts of the case and would not be read as adverse against the appellant. 38. In second part of the impugned para no. 85, the Remarks has been made by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority with regard to filing of liquidation initiation application after 41 days from the date of rejection of the Resolution Plan by the CoC and according to Ld. Adjudicating Authority the same should have been filed within 7 days. In the time line provided in the impugned order the Resolution plan is shown to have been finally rejected by the COC on 31.07.2023 and the application for getting further direction of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority was e-filed on 24.08.2023. Certainly this application has been filed with delay. Thus, this observation of the Adjudicating Authority is also based on correct facts and is not required to be interfered with. 39. Lastly, the appellant appears to be aggrieved by the observations of Ld. Adjudicating Authority made under para no. 87 of the impugned order. In para no. 87 Ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.2023, the appellant had informed the CoC of the scheme of Regulation 39 (3) (B) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 stating that in case none of the Resolution Plan is approved, the plan receiving the highest assenting votes has to be put for vote again. It is also stated that the CoC decided to discuss the matter internally and requested the appellant to circulate a note which was accordingly circulated and the RP has only articulated the provisions of the Code and Regulations as and when requested by the CoC. 43. The CoC in para no. 20 of its reply has stated about the consideration of the revised Resolution Plan of Mr. Dhoot and incidentally in para no. 23 has clearly stated that the appellant has provided adequate support for the CIRP of the CD and has guided the CoC appropriately and acted upon the instructions of the CoC. 44. Thus, the above factual matrix would reveal that it was the CoC which was negotiating with the RA's and specifically with the Promoter Mr. R.N Dhoot and it was on the instance of the CoC certain revisions were made by the RA in the plan. It is also reflected that CoC is not having any grievance with the performance of the appellant and whatever has bee....