Hindustan Oil Exploration Company vs Erstwhile Committee Of Creditors Jekpl ...

Hindustan Oil Exploration Company ....Appellant Vs. Erstwhile Committee of Creditors JEKPL Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondents &Ors.

Present:

Appellant: Mr. Rohit Rajershi, Mr. Abhijeet Sinha and Mr. Ramaswamy Meyyappan, Advocates. Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Senior Advocate with Ms. Misha, Mr. Siddhant Kant, Ms. Charu Bansal and Mr. Saurav Panda, Advocate for R2. Mr. Sujoy, Advocate for R3.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

17.11.2020: Appellant is the 'Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant' whose

Resolution Plan was rejected by the Committee of Creditors. It has assailed

impugned order dated 9th September, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench in I.A. No.

208/2020 in CA No. 188/2019 in CP No. (IB) 24/ALD/2017 by virtue whereof

the Adjudicating Authority while declining to accede to the prayer for reversal

of money to the Successful Resolution Applicant in the event of dismissal order

from the Hon'ble Apex Court, directed implementation of the approved

Resolution Plan on or before the extended date i.e. 30th September, 2020. The

impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the erstwhile Committee

of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor, in connivance with the Successful Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 969 of 2020 2

Resolution Applicant, accepted a re-negotiated fresh Resolution Plan and the

application of the Committee of Creditors under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency

and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short) filed before the Adjudicating

Authority was not maintainable and should not have been entertained by the

Adjudicating Authority for the Committee of Creditors had become functus

officio after approval of the Resolution Plan. It is submitted that the

Adjudicating Authority had approved the Resolution Plan on 04.02.2020 and in

terms of the approved Resolution Plan the Successful Resolution Applicant had

to bring in Rs.123 Cr. for Resolution within 30 days of approval of the plan

which expired on 05.03.2020. However, the Successful Resolution Applicant

did not implement the Resolution Plan and the erstwhile Committee of

Creditors of the Corporate Debtor, in connivance with the Successful

Resolution Applicant, accepted a fresh resolution plan to the detriment of legal

rights of the Appellant whose Resolution Plan was rejected on the ground that

he could not provide for lump sum time bound payment within 30 days of the

approval of its Resolution Plan.

2. After hearing Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate for the Appellant, we are of

the considered opinion that the Appellant has no locus to question the

implementation of the approved Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution

Applicant. Admittedly, appeal preferred against approval of the Resolution Plan

of the Successful Resolution Applicant stands dismissed by this Appellate

Tribunal. Direction given in terms of the impugned order on the application

filed under Section 60(5) of the 'I&B Code' to the Successful Resolution

Applicant follows as a necessary corollary to the dismissal of appeal filed

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 969 of 2020 3

against approval of Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant to

implement the approved Resolution Plan on or before the extended date of 30th

September, 2020. Once the Appellant is out of the fray, it has neither locus to

call in question any action of any of the stakeholders qua implementation of

the approved Resolution Plan nor can it claim any prejudice on the pretext that

any of the actions post approval of the Resolution Plan of Successful Resolution

Applicant in regard to its implementation has affected its prospects of being a

Successful Resolution Applicant. If the terms of the approved Resolution Plan

of Successful Resolution Applicant have been varied or time extended to

facilitate its implementation and the creditors have not claimed any prejudice

on that count and the Committee of Creditors comprising of the creditors as

stakeholders has not objected to same rather been privy to it on account of

hardship due to prevailing circumstances, the Appellant cannot be permitted to

cry foul. It is not a case of alleged material irregularity in the Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process which is in final stages with the approved

Resolution Plan being under implementation. Outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic

has slowed down the economic activity and operations have been adversely

impacted. Viewed in that context some necessary changes in the agreed terms

and extension of time for implementation would not be uncalled for. Be that as

it may, the Appellant has no locus to maintain that the change in terms of the

approved Resolution Plan in regard to extension of time for induction of upfront

amount as also implementation of the Resolution Plan has jeopardized its legal

rights qua consideration of its Resolution Plan which has been rejected.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 969 of 2020 4

3. There being no merit in this appeal, same is dismissed in limine.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)

AR/g

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 969 of 2020