JUDGEMENT

[Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)] Present is a set of two appeals filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” in short) arising out of the common order dated 10.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”) passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court- II) in CP (IB) No. 559/(MB)/2018. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority ordered the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor – Trend Electronics Limited, as a going concern under section 33 of the IBC. Aggrieved by this impugned order, one set of appeal vide Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.

565/2023 (herein referred to as the ‘first appeal’) has been preferred by one of the prospective resolution applicants, Epitome Components Pvt. Ltd. (‘Epitome’ in short) on the ground that there have been material irregularities in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ in short) of the Corporate Debtor. The other set of appeal has been filed vide Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 528/2023 (herein referred to as the ‘second appeal’) by Marathwada Audogik and General Kamgar Sanghatan (‘Sanghathan’ in short) under Section 61 of the IBC against the same impugned order aggrieved with the fact that the impugned order does not take into account the interests of all stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and that the livelihood of nearly 134 families which are dependent on the operations of the Corporate Debtor have been imperilled.

2. The brief facts of the case which are common to both set of appeals and necessary to be noticed are as follows:

 CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor by the Adjudicating Authority on 25.09.2018 and an Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’ in short) was appointed who was later appointed as the Resolution Professional (‘RP’ in short). Subsequently on applications having been filed for consolidation of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor with other companies of the Videocon Group, the Adjudicating Authority passed another order on 08.08.2019 whereby the CIRP of the present Corporate Debtor was not consolidated and directed to be started afresh.

 The Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’ in short), the present Respondent No. 2 in the first appeal and sole Respondent in the second appeal, accordingly approved re-invitation of Expression of Interest (‘E0I’ in short). However, on two occasions, the potential resolution applicants who submitted their EOI having chosen to withdraw their resolution plan, the CoC resolved to reissue EOI once again on 31.01.2020.  Epitome, the present Appellant in the first appeal, through its promoter expressed its interest to submit a resolution plan following which the CoC extended the last date for submission of resolution plans by all resolution applicants till 31.08.2020. Dissatisfied with resolution plans received from the potential resolution applicants including Epitome, the CoC invited EOIs afresh with the last date fixed as 31.12.2020.  Three resolution plans were received but all the three potential resolution applicants including Epitome were thereafter requested to submit revised resolution plans by 29.05.2021. A resolution plan was submitted by Epitome on 05.05.2021 and pursuant to a query raised by the RP, furnished their final signed resolution plan on 05.06.2021.  The RP again sent an email on 08.06.2021 seeking certain further clarifications from Epitome as to whether it was barred by Section 29A of the IBC to which Epitome clarified in the negative.

 On 08.07.2021, the RP informed Epitome that the CoC had decided to place compliant resolution plans for voting on 13.07.2021 and sought specific information regarding alleged ineligibility of Mrs Sushma Dhoot (‘Sushma’ in short) and Ms Nalini Dhoot (‘Nalini’ in short) to submit a resolution plan on account of their being classified as promoters of Videocon Industries Limited (‘VIL’ in short).  Epitome thereafter sent an email