Gundeep Gurdeep Singh Sood vs Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1055 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a prospective resolution applicant has withdrawn its resolution plan before the Committee of Creditors meets to consider it, the Committee is not obliged to consider that plan, and the withdrawn plan cannot be revived by a later submission of a fresh plan; the Committee's approval of another plan that was before it, found by the Adjudicating Authority to conform to the Code and the Regulations, is not vitiated on that ground.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Gundeep Gurdeep Singh Sood ...Appellant
Versus
Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary Resolution Professional of Kromme Glass Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gulshan Kr. Sachdev, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate for RP.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
16.12.2021: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed against order dated 25.11.2021, by which the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata has approved the
Resolution Plan submitted by the Respondent No. 4.
2. The Appellant, a Suspended Director has submitted a Resolution Plan
before the Resolution Professional which was to be considered in the 10th CoC
Meeting dated 10.03.2021. The suspended management has sent an email dated
09.03.2021 withdrawing their plan. After withdrawal of the Resolution Plan of
Cont'd.../ -2-
the suspended management i.e. Appellant only Resolution Plan of 'Mega
Innovative Crops Pvt. Ltd.' was alone considered and it was discussed in the CoC
meeting of 10.03.2021. Revised Resolution Plan dated 25.03.2021 of the 'Mega
Innovative Crops Pvt. Ltd.' was approved by the CoC with 100% voting share of
the Members of the CoC.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant ought to
have been given opportunity to submit a fresh plan which actually was
submitted. He further submits he has also filed an application seeking direction
for consideration of his resolution plan. Said application was withdrawn on
26.11.2021.
4. The Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order dated 25.11.2021 has
approved the Resolution Plan after recording finding that the plan is in
accordance with the Sections of the Code and the Regulations. Learned Counsel
for the Appellant submits that his plan could not be considered by the CoC.
Suffice it to say that the plan which was submitted by the Appellant was
withdrawn by email dated 09.03.2021. The factum of withdrawal of the
Resolution Plan of Appellant on 09.03.2021 is not disputed. What is contended
is that subsequently they have submitted fresh plan. The only plan which was
before the CoC was considered and approved by the CoC on 25.03.2021.
Therefore there was no occasion for the CoC to consider the plan of the Appellant.
We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1055 of 2021 -3-
approving the Resolution Plan i.e. the plan which was found to be in accordance
with the Code and Regulations. We do not find any merit in this Appeal. The
Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Archana/nn.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1055 of 2021
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