S.No.20 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH – 1 ATTENDANCE CUM ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING HELD ON

06-01-2023 AT 10:30 AM IA (IBC) 1554/2022 in 1199/2022 in CP (IB) No. 747/7/HDB/2019 U/s 7 of IBC, 2016 IN THE MATTER OF:

State Bank of India …Financial Creditor Vs Rajvir Industries Ltd …Corporate Debtor C O R A M:-

DR. VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA BADARINATH NANDULA, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SH. CHARAN SINGH, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

O R D E R

IA (IBC) 1554/2022 in 1199/2022 Ld. Counsel Shri. Dishit Bhattacharjee for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel Ms.

Kaivalya for the Respondent present.

This is an application filed by one of the members of Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor “M/s. Rajvir Industries Limited” for a direction to the Resolution Professional to add an item namely, voting on the appointment of the Liquidator in the agenda of the 26^th meeting of the members of COC to be convened by the RP. This Adjudicating Authority pursuant to notice, the Resolution Professional filed his counter, inter-alia, contending that the allegation made in Para 7 to 11 of the application are not true. Besides unnecessary and un-wanted for the purpose of the present application and contended that:

a. The CIRP got completely by 13^th April 2022.

b. Since a decision to liquidate the CD was recommended by the COC and a petition filed there is no provision for calling for a COC meeting unless otherwise directed by the Adjudicating Authority.

c. The 24^th or the 25^th COC meetings were held as directed by the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority.

d. Similarly, the 26^th COC meeting was called with the sole specific agenda as directed by the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority.

e. Some of the members stayed away from the meeting on some pretext or other.

f. IDBI sent a mail informing that they filed a petition, and they filed an IA in 1199, i.e., the present petition and since the matter is listed on the of the COC, hence requested for postponement of the meeting.

g. Not considering the request of the FC’s need not be construed as doing things against them or violation of provisions of IBC 2016. On the other hand, by accommodating their request the respondent Resolution Professional will be violating the directions of this Hon’ble Bench.

h. The petitioner is unnecessarily interfering with the CIRP process and causing unnecessary delay and is provoking and disturbing the process through his continuous inference which is evident from the mail and correspondence and the present petition itself.

Thus, submitting the RP prayed for passing orders to liquidate the Corporate Debtor in terms of section 33 of the code and to appoint the present RP as Liquidator in terms of the earlier recommendation of the COC.

In the light of the context, the short and the only point that emerges for consideration by this Adjudicating Authority is POINT:

Whether the RP can be directed to include the item namely, voting on the appointment of the Liquidator for the Corporate Debtor, in the 26^th meeting of the members of the COC?

We have heard Shri. Dishit Bhattacharjee, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Shri. Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent and Shri. TSN Raja, the Resolution Professional in person. Perused the record.

At the outset it may be stated that this Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 12.12.2022 directed the RP to conduct the meeting of the COC with the following agenda:

(i) To decide the eligibility of suspended management as resolution applicants the suspended management has been declared as wilful defaulter by creditor/creditors.

(ii) If resolution plan submitted by the suspended management received are not approved, then resort to liquidation, as liquidation also shall be done within the timeframe and a suitable resolution in this regard be passed in accordance of the IB Code and relevant regulations.

However, as the request of the applicant which is one of the members of the COC, to include the item of voting on the appointment of the Liquidator fo