Mahamaya Food Products vs Tayal Foods Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1006 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A successful resolution applicant, once its resolution plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors, cannot alter or modify that plan on the ground that, with the passage of time, it is no longer able to implement it; the plan is binding as approved, and a resolution applicant's refusal to implement it does not give it a right to resile from the plan. Where the successful resolution applicant refuses to perform or implement the approved resolution plan, forfeiture of the amount furnished under the performance guarantee is a consequence the Adjudicating Authority may properly order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mahamaya Food Products ...Appellant
Versus
Tayal Foods Ltd. ...Respondent Through Sh. Jagdish Kumar Parulkar, Resolution Professional
Present: For Appellant: Advocate Kiran Kumar Patra For Respondent: Mr. Aishvary Vikram and Ms. Mrinali Prasad, Advocates Mr. Iaqdish Parolkan, RP/Liquidator
ORDER
25.08.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 21st June, 2022. By
which Order, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Application filed by
the Resolution Professional/Chairman, Monitoring Committee directing for
liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and further directing for forfeiture of the
performance guarantee given by the Appellant-Successful Resolution
Applicant.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that after the approval of the
Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors (CoC in short), Appellant has
intimated the Resolution Professional that due to lapse of sufficient time, the
Appellant is unable to carry on the Resolution Plan. In this context, he has
referred to letter dated 25th February, 2021. The Resolution Plan was approved
by the CoC on 23.11.2020 thereafter Application was filed by the Resolution -2-
Professional for approval before the Adjudicating Authority which came to be
approved on 2nd March, 2021.
4. The submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that after approval
of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, he has intimated the Resolution
Professional that due to lapse of time, he is unable to carry on the Resolution
Plan does not commend us. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of "Ebix Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs. CoC of
Educomp Solutions Ltd." [(2022) 2 SCC 401], the Resolution Applicant after
plan is approved can neither alter nor modify the Resolution Plan. In the first
monitoring committee meeting, the Appellant himself has expressed his
inability to implement the plan hence the monitoring committee decided to file
an Application for liquidation. The performance guarantee has been forfeited
by the Impugned Order since the Appellant refused to perform/implement
Resolution Plan. we do not find any error in the Order forfeiting the amount
under the performance guarantee. There is no error in the Order of the
Adjudicating Authority, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1006/2022
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