Brijesh Singh Bhadauriya vs Mr. Pinakin Shah Interim Resolution ...

Brijesh Singh Bhadauriya ...Appellant

Versus

Pinakin Shah, ...Respondents IRP of Sintex Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Present: For Appellant: Advocate Manisha T Karia, Adarsh Kumar, Nidhi Nagpal, Aditya Kesav, Rohan Trivedi. For Respondent:

ORDER

25.04.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 10th February, 2023

by which order the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan

of Sintex Industries Ltd. The Appellant who was shareholder of the Corporate

Debror has come up in this Appeal challenging the Order of the approval of

the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that IRP has conducted the

Insolvency Process not in accordance with Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

2016 and several illegalities were committed. It is submitted that Committee

of Creditors had also initially decided to change the IRP but subsequently they

reverted back and continued the IRP. Learned Counsel for the Appellant

submitted that this Tribunal has also passed an Order on 24th November, 2021

where it was observed that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process were not

required to be proceeded with.

-2-

4. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the

Appellant and have perused the record.

5. Appellant is shareholder and was not part of the process in the CIRP.

Suspended Directors were part of the CIRP and were present in the meetings.

Any aggrieved persons may approach the CoC for removal of the RP/IRP or to

approach the Adjudicating Authority. IRP has conducted the entire process

with the approval of the CoC. Resolution Plan has been placed before the

Adjudicating Authority, the Plan having been approved by the Adjudicating

Authority, commercial wisdom of the COC is not easily to be interfered with in

exercise of jurisdiction by the Adjudicating Authority or by this Tribunal. Mere

allegations that IRP/RP has not conducted the CIRP in accordance with law,

the order approving the Plan can not be interfered with. The order dated

24.11.2021 of this Tribunal never stayed the CIRP Process. No specific

grounds or reasons have been given that CIRP was conducted in breach of IBC

or its Regulations. We do not find any ground to interfere with the Order

impugned. The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 456/2023