Mr. Ram Bhaj Jain vs Tarun Batra And Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1011 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Committee of Creditors' decision to refuse approval of a resolution plan, taken in its commercial wisdom, is not open to judicial review by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal in the absence of any demonstrated error in the process. The pendency of an one-time settlement proposal from the corporate debtor before the sole financial creditor does not render an order of liquidation under Section 33(1)(a) invalid.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ram Bhaj Jain ...Appellant
Versus
Tarun Batra, Resolution Professional Vardhman Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. S. P. Singh Chawla, Advocate. For Respondents:
ORDER
23.08.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed against the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi, Court IV by which I.A.
No. 1816 of 2021 filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 33(1)(a)
for issuing directions for liquidation has been allowed. The Appellant -
Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor has come up in this Appeal
challenging the said order.
2. It is submitted by the Appellant that the Corporate Debtor being a
MSME, the Resolution Plan was submitted by the Appellant which required
proper consideration. It is submitted that the single CoC member has rejected
the Resolution Plan without giving any reasons. He further submits that an
OTS proposal of the Corporate Debtor is under consideration before the Bank,
the sole CoC member.
Cont'd.../ 2
3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Appellant and perused the record.
4. The Appellant himself has brought on record minutes of 9th CoC
meeting held on 02.04.2021, where the Resolution Plan submitted by the
Appellant was not approved with 100% dissent of the Financial Creditor. The
submission of learned counsel of the Appellant that there is no due
consideration of the plan cannot be accepted. The CoC in its commercial
wisdom having refused to approve the plan submitted by the Appellant that
decision is not open for any judicial review. In facts of the present case, the
fact that OTS of the Appellant is under consideration also does not render the
order of liquidation invalid in any manner.
5. We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating
Authority allowing application for liquidation. There is no merit in the Appeal.
The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1011 of 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