Board Of Trustees For Syama Prasad ... vs Brighterside Renewable Energy ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1852 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which has not been challenged by appeal within the prescribed time, cannot be reopened on its merits in an appeal against an order refusing to recall the approval order; the scope of such an appeal is confined to whether the refusal of recall was correct on the grounds advanced in the recall application. An application seeking recall of an approved resolution plan, which in substance seeks review of the approval order on the merits of the plan's provisions, is not maintainable as a means of raising objections to the plan that could have been raised by appeal against the approval order within time. Whether the plan's implementation gives rise to grievances is a matter to be raised by the concerned parties before the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law, and the Appellate Tribunal expresses no opinion on such matters in an appeal against an order refusing recall.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Board of Trustees for Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port Kolkata ...Appellant Versus Brighterside Renewable Energy Ventures Pvt Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Buddy Ranganadhan, Mr. Siddhant Jaiswal, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Shashwat Anand, Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Mr. Deepanshu Badiwal, Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.11.2024: Heard Shri Rohatgi, learned counsel for the Appellant and
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed
against order dated 12.08.2024 by which IA No.890/KB/2021 filed by the
Appellant - Board of Trustees for Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port Kolkata has
been rejected.
2. CIRP against the Corporate Debtor - Manor Floatel Ltd. commenced
and concluded by approval of the Resolution Plan on 30.10.2018. In the
resolution process, the Appellant did not file any claim. After approval of the
plan, in the year 2021, IA No.890/KB/2021 was filed praying for recall of the
order dated 30.10.2018, which application has been rejected by the impugned
order.
Cont'd.../ 2
3. Shri Rohatgi, learned counsel for the Appellant submit that the plan
contains provisions which are contrary to the law and could not have been
approved by virtue of Section 30(2) of the IBC. It is submitted the by the plan
lease has been granted in perpetuity. He further submits that the
Adjudicating Authority ought to have entertained the application and given
opportunity to the Appellant to raise all contentions.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that plan approval was
also not challenged by the Appellant within the time and application was filed
in the year 2021 after three years and issues with regard to plan approval
cannot be allowed to be raised by the Appellant while considering application
for recall of order which was virtually an application for review of plan
approval order.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. The plan approval dated 30.10.2018 was never put in question by filing
an appeal by the Appellant and the said order cannot be allowed to be
challenged on merits in this appeal. The limited scope of challenge is to the
order rejecting recall of order on the grounds mentioned in the application.
The Adjudicating Authority after considering the submissions took the view
that there was no ground to allow the recall application filed by the Appellant.
We concur with the view of the Adjudicating Authority in dismissing the
application for recall filed by the Appellant. In so far as the submission which
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1852 of 2024 3
are raised by the Appellant, we are of the view that no opinion can be
expressed in this proceeding. Any issue with regard to implementation of the
plan are the questions which need to be raised by the concerned parties before
the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. With these observations,
the appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1852 of 2024
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free