Committee Of Creditors vs Mr. Anil Tayal Resolution Professional ...

Committee of Creditors Through Its Represe Tative Jaga Ath Kar ...Appellant

Versus

Anil Tayal Resolution Professional of Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Nayyar, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand and Ms. Jasleen Singh Sandha, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.02.2024: I.A. No. 5896 of 2023: This is an application praying for

condonation of 13 days' delay in filing the Appeal. The ground taken in the

affidavit is that renovation work was going on in the office of the counsel for

the Appellant due to which file got misplaced and the Authorized

Representative could not sign the appeal as he was in Rajasthan for some

personal exigencies. Cause shown sufficient, delay is condoned. I.A. No.5896

of 2023 is disposed of.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the

Resolution Professional. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated

25.07.2023 passed by the NCLT, New Delhi, Court-III in I.A. No.1993 of 2023.

Cont'd.../ -2-

The Application was filed by the Appellant praying for following reliefs in I.A.

No.1993 of 2023:

"a) Reject the valuation report obtained by the RP from its valuers and direct him to consider the valuation reports dated 21.12.2022 given by Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena and Ms. Aditi Aggarwal; or in the alternative;

b) Appoint a fresh valuer to ascertain a fair value and liquidation value of the assets of Group Housing Society Known as IRIDIA in the matter of M/s Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.;

c) Pass any other or further orders/directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the present circumstances of the matter and in the interest of justice."

3. The Adjudicating Authority noticing the fact that Committee of Creditor

has already approved the Resolution on 06.10.2022 has rejected the

application. The Adjudicating Authority further observed that the application

filed by a set of homebuyers has not been filed through Authorised

Representative. Aggrieved by which order this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submit that the observation of the

Adjudicating Authority that application filed by a set of homebuyers has not

been filed through Authorised Representative is incorrect. It is submitted

that the application was authorised by the homebuyers and earlier

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1633 of 2023 -3-

Authorised Representative has withdrawn themselves, hence, the application

was fully maintainable.

5. We are of the view that the said observation made by the Adjudicating

Authority that application is not filed by Authorised person is not correct and

we proceed on the assumption that Appellant were authorised representative

of the homebuyers in the present case.

6. The Resolution Professional in the CIRP proceedings, appointed two

valuers under Section 35 of the CIRP Regulations and the two valuers have

submitted their valuation reports. There being difference of more than 10%

in the valuation of two valuers, a third valuer was appointed. After completion

of the valuation exercise, resolution plan was placed before the CoC for

consideration. The CoC approved the Resolution Plan and application has

already been filed by the Resolution Professional for approval of the plan

before the Adjudicating Authority.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant in 12th and

13th meeting of the CoC has raised issued of valuation. Learned counsel for

the Appellant has referred to the 'C', Item 2 and 3 (page 90 of paper book).

The question with regard to valuation report was placed before the CoC and

deliberated and reply of the Resolution Professional who was Chairman of the

CoC was also noticed in the meeting of the CoC.

8. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that valuation is at higher

side which shall affect the homebuyers. Valuation has been obtained as per

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1633 of 2023 -4-

Regulations and Resolution Plan has been already approved, we, thus, are of

the view that the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting

the application filed by the Appellant.

9. Learned counsel for the Respondent has relied on judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Ramkrishna Forgings Limited vs. Ravindra Loonkar,

Resolution Professional of ACIL Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.1527 of

2022" decided on 21.11.2023. In the said case, after approval of the

Resolution Plan question of valuation was sought to be raised and the

Adjudicating Authority has directed for valuation, which order was set aside

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said judgment fully supports the

submission of learned counsel for the Respondent.

10. We, thus, are of the view that no error has been committed by the

Adjudicating Authority in rejecting application filed by the Appellant. Appeal

is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1633 of 2023