Kamal Narendra Ganatra & Ors vs Resolution Professional Of Srk ...

Kamal Narendra Ganatra & Ors. ....Appellants Vs. Resolution Professional of SRK Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent For Appellants: Mr. Monaal Davawala, Advocate. For Respondent:

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

11.02.2022: Learned Counsel for the Appellants.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2021 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad

Bench, Court-1 by which I.A 820/2020 filed in CP(IB) 457 of 2018 has been

rejected. The Application was filed by the Resolution Professional under

Section 30(6) of the I&B Code for approval of the Resolution Plan which

Application came to be heard and decided by impugned judgment. The

Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Application for approval of the

Resolution Plan. In para 9 of the judgment, Adjudicating Authority has made

following observations:-

"9. Heard Learned Counsel for the applicant and perused contents of Resolution Plan as well as Form- H, it appears that the amount offered by the prospective Resolution Applicant is far lower than the liquidation value of Corporate Debtor is 2

Rs.80,13,998/- as per Form-H. However, the amount offered in the resolution plan is Rs. 1,30,000/- does not justify the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Object of "IB Code" is to revive the Company if any prospective Resolution applicant offers a reasonable bid in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets, but it cannot be derogative to the interest of stakeholders specially when the liquidation value is much higher than Resolution Applicant's bid. The amount provided to the operational creditors shall not be less than the amount provided under liquidation value of the corporate debtor as per section 30(2) of IB Code. In the present case though the amount committed amount under the resolution plan is being given to the operational creditor as there are no financial creditor, but, still amount provided under resolution plan is much lower than liquidation value......"

3. The Liquidation value which was valued by the Valuer is

Rs.80,13,998/- as noted above.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that certain

questions with regard to valuation as recorded by the Valuer specially

regarding the 'non-current investments' book value of which was 86,836

wherein fair value taken as 1,25,44,257. Copy of the valuation report has

been brought on the record at Page 76 of the appeal paper-book and from

which valuation report the Adjudicating Authority has come to the

conclusion that the liquidation value is Rs.80,13,998/-. In the Resolution

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 141 of 2022 3

Plan, Appellant has offered only an amount of Rs. 1,30,000 which is much

below to the liquidation value as given by the valuer. Learned Counsel for the

Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have

interfered with the decision of the Committee of Creditors approving the

Resolution Plan.

5. Present is a case where the Adjudicating Authority has given valid

reasons for not approving the Resolution Plan and having found it not in

compliance with Section 30(2) of the Code. When Resolution Plan is not in

compliance with provisions of the Code, no error has been committed by the

Adjudicating Authority in rejecting such plan. We do not find any ground to

entertain this Appeal. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is

dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) Anjali/gc

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 141 of 2022