Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 4795
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
K. R. Saji Kumar, MEMBER (JUDICIAL), Anil Raj Chellan, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
STEEL RESOURCES – Appellant
Versus
PRITDIP IMPEX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
IA (I.B.C) (Plan) No. 87/MB/2024 | C.P.(IB) No. 277/MB/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. Avinash R. Khanolkar, Adv. Surekha Yadav, Adv. Khushbu Bhanushali, Mr. Rajesh Kamath (RP) in person
A resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors must comply with statutory requirements, and the Adjudicating Authority cannot question its commercial wisdom.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 30(6), 31, 14 - Corporate Debtor under CIRP seeks approval of a Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors - The plan was approved with 100% voting share meeting requisite statutory provisions, including payments to creditors and supervision post-approval. (Paras 12.1, 12.2, 7.1, and 7.3)
(B) Resolution Plan - Legal compliance - The Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC but should ensure statutory compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC. (Paras 12.4, 12.5)
Facts of the case:
The application for approval of the Resolution Plan was filed under IBC for Corporate Debtor facing insolvency, plan approved by sole operational creditor in a subsequent meeting.
Findings of Court:
The Plan meets the statutory requirements, including payment of operational creditors following the CIRP cost and management structure post-approval.
Issues: The main issues addressed included compliance with statutory provisions of IBC and approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the approval of the plan from the CoC, where all requirements were complied with, is mandatory, ensuring effectiveness upon approval without modification. (Paras 12.6, 12.7)
Result: The Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant is approved.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cirp initiation and resolution plan approval process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. financial assessments and creditor claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's role in assessing statutory compliance of resolution plans. (Para 12) |
ORDER
[PER: K. R. SAJI KUMAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)]
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 This IA (I.B.C) (Plan) No. 87/MB/2024 is filed by Mr. Rajesh Ramesh Kamath, the Applicant/Resolution Professional (RP) on behalf of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Pritdip Impex (India) Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor (CD), on 15.10.2024, seeking approval of the Resolution Plan, under Section 30 (6) read with Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code/IBC) and Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 (CIRP Regulations), submitted by Mr. Kushal S. Rungta, i.e., the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and duly approved by 100% voting share of the CoC in its 9th meeting held on 30.09.2024
2. CORPORTATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS
2.1 This Adjudicating Authority (AA) vide ex-parte order dated 22.11.2023, in C.P.(IB) No. 277/MB/2022, admitted the CD into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) filed by Steel Resources as Operational Creditor (OC) of the CD, under Section 9 of the IBC. The order of the AA was challenged by Mr. Deepak Dahyalal Mavani, ex-director of the CD, in Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 300 of 2024 before the Principal Bench of the Hon’ble NCLAT. However, the Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2024. The Applicant was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional, in the 1st CoC meeting dated 28.12.2023, and later he was confirmed as the RP for conducting the CIRP of the CD.
2.2 The Public Announcement in terms of Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations in Form A was made on 01.12.2023, inviting claims from creditors, workers and employees of the CD, under Section 15 of the IBC.
2.3 Upon the perusal of CD’s Financial Statements as on 31.03.2024, the Applicant/RP found that the CD owed Rs.90,876/- to HDFC Bank. Accordingly, he sent an email on 07.12.2023, communicating the same to the Bank. Thereafter, the RP also visited HDFC Bank, Andheri (W) Branch and informed them that the CD was under CIRP. However, HDFC Bank did not submit any claim by providing any document relating to the loan reflected in the books of the CD.
2.4 Based on the other claims received, the CoC was constituted on 22.12.2023, comprising the sole OC, i.e., ‘Steel Resources’ as its member under Regulation 16 of the CIRP Regulations.
2.5 Further, due to non-cooperation from the CD’s suspended Board of Directors, the Applicant filed IA(IBC) No. 448/2024, which was disposed of by the order dated 08.02.2024 of this Tribunal.
2.6 Form G, for Expression of Interest (EoI), was invited for the first time on 22.03.2024, pursuant to the resolution passed in the 4th CoC meeting. The last date for submission of EoI was 07.04.2024. The CoC, in its 5th meeting dated 15.04.2024, approved the Information Memorandum (IM), Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) and Evaluation Matrix (EM) for Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs). However, due to non-receipt of EoI from any PRA by the last date for submitting EoI, i.e., 07.04.2024, the CoC, in its 6th meeting dated 17.05.2024, voted to reissue Form G as well as extension of CIRP period.
2.7 Pursuant to the issuance of Form G for the second time on 20.05.2024, the Applicant/RP informed the CoC that there was no response from any PRA for submission of EoI till the last date of 05.06.2024. Therefore, the CoC, in its 7th meeting dated 24.06.2024, again voted in favour of issuing Form G for the third time. Thus, Form G was issued for the third time on 27.06.2024, with the last date of submitting EoI as 13.07.2024. The CoC was informed in its 8th meeting dated 22.08.2024 that the Applicant had received EoI from only one PRA, i.e., Mr. Kushal S. Rungta, who submitted his EoI on 11.07.2024. After verification of the EoI sub
