TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L JUDGMENT: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson)]: Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel appearing for Bank of India, as well as the Learned Counsel appearing for the erstwhile Corporate Debtor. 2. This Appeal has been filed being aggrieved against the order dated 17.03.2023, as passed by the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Mangalagiri in IA(IBC) No.58/2022 in CP(IB) No.217/94/AMR/2019. 3. By the order impugned, the Learned Adjudicating Authority has accepted the report submitted by the Resolution Professional, thereby taking on record the decision of the meeting of creditors that was held on 31.03.2022, where the repayment plan submitted by the Appellant was rejected. 4. Br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Appellant for Rs. 24 crores, which was with regard to group companies, which was not a relevant factor to be taken cognizance of rejecting the repayment plan. 8. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that, under Section 114 Sub-Section (3) of the I & B Code, 2016, the Learned Adjudicating Authority, has discretion vested with it to ask the creditors to reconsider the plan, which discretion has not been exercised in the present case as per the intention of the statute. 9. It is submitted that no reasons have been given by the Financial Creditor, Bank of India, for not accepting the repayment plan, where the repayment plan has offered a value more than the assets of the Appellant. 10. The counsel for the ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he repayment plan, which was submitted by the Appellant, was for an amount of Rs. 68.84 lakhs. The submissions, which have been pressed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant are that the value of the assets of the Appellant is only Rs. 36.93 lakhs, as assessed by the Resolution Professional, and the offer of Rs. 68.84 lakhs, is rather much more than the value of the assets of the Appellant. Hence, the Repayment Plan submitted by the Appellant deserved acceptance. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that by virtue of Section 114(3) of the I & B Code, 2016, the Learned Adjudicating Authority has discretion to direct for reconsideration of the plan, unlike Section 31 of the I & B Code, 2016. Section 114 of the I & B C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so communicated that, they are not relinquishing the security, and they had a claim of Rs. 736.64 lakhs. The Resolution Professional, in its meeting, had noted that Bank of India had not voted for the Repayment Plan, which held the voting share of 71.22%. The repayment plan could not get the minimum required voting rights. Hence, the repayment plan proposed by the Appellant was rejected, which was the minutes report of proceedings that was considered by the Learned Adjudicating Authority as placed by the Resolution Professional. 16. Admittedly, the dues of the Bank of India as noted in the impugned order are more than Rs. 106 crores. When the Appellant had offered a plan of Rs. 68.84 lakhs, it was for the Bank of India, which was the cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reconsideration of the plan. 19. The submission of the Appellant that he was offering a value in the Repayment Plan, which is more than the said value of the Appellant that in itself cannot be a ground in all cases to direct for acceptance of Repayment Plan, when it is offered of the value of the assets, which Appellant has under all facts and circumstances including the debt due had to be looked into. No obligation can be cast on the Financial Creditor to accept the Resolution Plan, and unless the decision taken by the Financial Creditor is shown to be an arbitrary interference by the Learned Adjudicating Authority or this Tribunal is uncalled for. 20. Section 114(3) of the I & B Code, 2016, although it is an enabling provision for ....