Committee Of Creditors Of Delhi Control ... vs Ashok Kumar Gupta Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 308 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Adjudicating Authority has directed a fresh valuation of the corporate debtor's assets and remitted a resolution plan to the CoC, and no stakeholder has objected to the existing valuation reports nor raised any issue as to their incorrectness, there is no reason to direct revaluation; such a direction is set aside. Where a resolution plan approval application under section 30(6) is pending and objections to the plan have been raised before the Adjudicating Authority, the Authority must consider and decide those objections together with the plan approval application before taking a decision on the plan; the Appellate Tribunal does not express any opinion on the merits of the plan in so directing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Committee of Creditors of Delhi Control Devices Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta Resolution Professional of Delhi Control Devices Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents Present For Appellant: Mr. K. Datta, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Mehak Khurana. For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Prateek Kushwaha for R-1. Mr. Ashok Kr. Gupta (RP, R-1) Mr. GP Madaan, Mr. Aditya Madaan, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Udhav Nanda for Intervenor.
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 277 of 2022
In the matter of: Statcon Electronics India Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. ....Respondents Present For Appellant: Mr. GP Madaan, Mr. Aditya Madaan, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Prateek Kushwaha for R-1. Mr. Ashok Kr. Gupta (RP, R-1) Ms. Mehak Khurana for R-2, CoC Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Udhav Nanda for Intervenor.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 308 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 277 of 2022
1 ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
21.07.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
These two appeals have been filed against the order dated 21.02.2022
passed by the Adjudicating Authority. While considering the plan approval
application, submitted by 'Resolution Professional' u/s 30(6) of the Code, the
'Adjudicating Authority' after noticing the contents of the 'Resolution Plan' made
the following reasons for referring the matter back to the CoC:-
"11. As seen from the Resolution
Plan, as submitted by the Resolution
Applicant, more than 90% haircut is
offered to the creditors. In view of the
same, it is directed that the revaluation
of the assets of the Corporate Debtor
through an independent valuer
appointed by each member of the CoC
shall be done independently and
depending upon the average value,
further call can be taken by this
Authority, therefore, the matter is
referred back to the Coc."
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 308 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 277 of 2022
2
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there was no objection
regarding valuation of the assets of the 'Corporation Debtor' by any stakeholders.
There being no objection regarding valuation which was already done, the
direction of the Adjudicating Authority for re-valuation was uncalled for.
3. Learned Counsel for the 'Resolution Professional' also submits that no
objections by any stakeholder were made regarding valuation of the assets of the
'Corporate Debtor'.
4. When there was no objection regarding valuation and no issue regarding
incorrectness of the valuation reports already received have been raised, there
was no reason for directing revaluation of the assets of the 'Corporate Debtor'.
We thus, are of the view that the directions issued in paragraph 11 for
revaluation of assets of the 'Corporate Debtor' as well as remitting the matter
back to the CoC deserved to be set aside and are hereby set aside.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor submitted that an
application filed by the Intervenor has already been pending before the
Adjudicating Authority where he has raised objection regarding approval of
'Resolution Plan'.
6. Learned Counsel for 'Resolution Professional' submits that they have
already filed the reply to the said application which is pending consideration.
7. We are of the view that the Resolution Plan approval application filed by
'Resolution Professional' be considered afresh along with other applications and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 308 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 277 of 2022
3 objections pending before the Adjudicating Authority regarding the 'Resolution
Plan'.
8. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion with regard to
approval of the plan. We are only directing the Adjudicating Authority to
consider all the matters before taking a decision on the plan approval application
filed by 'Resolution Professional'.
With these directions, both these appeals are partly allowed.
9. We request the Adjudicating Authority to consider and decide the
application for approval of 'Resolution Plan' at an early date.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Shashi/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 308 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 277 of 2022
4
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