Asgi Properties Private Limited & Anr vs Rajesh Ramnani Resolution ...

IN THE MATTER OF: ASGI Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Rajesh Ramnani & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shivanshu Kumar, Ms. Anshika Verma, Advocates with Mr. Rajesh Ramnani, RP for R-1. Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila, Mr. Rishabh Nigam, Ms. Kshirja Aggarwal, Mr. Srikant Singh, Advocates for SRA.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

24.01.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional. This Appeal has been filed

against the order dated 07.08.2022 passed by the NCLT, New Delhi, Court-3

on an IA filed by the Appellant being IA No.478 of 2024.

2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are:

2.1 There has been an MOU between the Appellant and the Corporate

Debtor on 26.10.2015 and 02.11.2015 with Tower S2A and Tower S2B. The

Appellant claims to be FSI purchaser from the Corporate Debtor. The

Corporate Debtor was put into insolvency by order dated 10.03.2022. In the

CIRP, Resolution Plans have been submitted. Appellant has filed IA No.6586

of 2023 seeking directions against the Resolution Professional to execute the

Cont'd.../ 2

external work, which was dismissed. Against which order the Appellant filed

an appeal, which was also dismissed. Another IA No.478 of 2024 was filed by

the Appellant praying for following reliefs:

"i. To allow the present application. ii. To reject the resolution plan of the Respondent No. 1. iii Pass any other direction/order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the larger interest of Justice."

2.2 The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Appellant and the

Resolution Professional took the view that Resolution Plan grants 90 days'

time for making the payment of the balance sale consideration, which is an

enabling provision for the Applicant and the other FSI buyers. The

Adjudicating Authority has made the said observation in Para 7 (iv) and (v).

The Adjudicating Authority took the view that CoC's commercial wisdom

cannot be interfered with and prayer of the Applicant to cancel the Resolution

Plan was not acceded to.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that although 90 days' time

has been allowed to make balance payment but subsequent to 90 days what

action shall be taken is not clear from the Resolution Plan. It is submitted

that other obligations under the MOU have not been dealt with.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Resolution Plan

itself provides opportunity to the Appellant to make balance payment so that

obligation under the MOU can be discharged.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1939 of 2024 3

5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the view

that the Resolution Plan protects the interests of the Appellant by granting

time to make payment. The question as to in event payment is not made in

90 days, need not be entered into and answered in this appeal, which is a

question which may be answered and dealt with in accordance with law as

per provisions of the MOU. We are of the view that no grounds have been

made out to interfere with the impugned order. Subject to observations as

above, we dismiss this appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1939 of 2024