Marinaindia Traexim Pvt Ltd vs Union Bank Of India & Anr

M/s. Marinaindia Traexim Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. Union Bank of India & Anr. ....Respondents Present: Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Arjun Syal, Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi, Mr. Salman Hashmi S Das, Advocates. Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Viren Sharma, Advocates for R2

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

02.03.2021: M/s. Marinaindia Traexim Pvt. Ltd. has preferred the instant

appeal assailing impugned order dated 4th January, 2021 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New

Delhi in CP IB-343(PB)/2019 to the limited extent of observations made in para

nos. 14, 15 & 16 and approve the Resolution Plan submitted by the Appellant

which stands duly approved by the Committee of Creditors (COC) on the

ground that the Adjudicating Authority while approving the Resolution Plan of

the Appellant made adverse observations in regard to wrongly perceived poor

coverage of security against the loan advanced by the Financial Creditors of the

Corporate Debtor and directed Reserve Bank of India besides Chairman and

Managing Directors of the Financial Creditors to inspect the loan account and

determine the responsibilities for such poor security coverage. 2

2. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, learned counsel for the Appellant, was confronted

with the fact emanating from record that the Resolution Plan of Appellant,

approved by the COC with majority of 72.30% voting share, stands approved by

the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the impugned order and observations

have been made in the context of the total debt advanced by several banks

being Rs.550 Crores with Resolution Plan value being merely Rs.24 Crore i.e.

less than 5% of the total debt thereby raising eyebrows as there was a huge gap

between the debt advanced and the value of securities taken by these Banks

coupled with the fact that the bank officials could not satisfactorily explain the

same. He was asked how the Appellant could claim such observations being

adverse to it when the Adjudicating Authority had directed RBI authorities and

CMDs of these banks to inspect the loan accounts and determine

responsibilities for such poor security coverage taken for such huge amounts of

loans advanced by these Banks and that how could he claim relief in the

nature of approval of his Resolution Plan which already stood approved by the

Adjudicating Authority. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that with

the sword of Damocles hanging on their heads, these banks would not be

providing financial facilities to Appellant for implementation of the Resolution

Plan. This argument is sound neither in technique nor in substance and

deserves to be outrightly rejected. It is astonishing as to how the Appellant can

claim to be aggrieved of the impugned order when its Resolution Plan stands

approved by the Adjudicating Authority and no adverse observations have been

made against it.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 141 of 2021 3

3. It appears that the Appellant is acting at the behest of some invisible

characters who, in the wake of observations in para 14 of the impugned order,

are not difficult to identify. This is a frivolous appeal. However, we stop short of

imposing costs while dismissing the appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)

AR/g

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 141 of 2021