Mukesh Verma vs Committee Of Creditors Imp Powers ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Mr. Mukesh Verma Resolution Professional M/s. IMP Powers Ltd. B 1506, Sunteck City, Avenue 2 Goregaon West, Mumbai 400104 ...Appellant

Versus

Committee of Creditors IMP Powers Ltd. Through State Bank of India SARG, Corporate Centre 21st Floor, Maker Tower E Cuffae Parade, Mumbai ..Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Prakhar Tandon & Mr. Agam H Maloo, Advocates. For : Mr. Asav Rajan, Mr. Kashish Chadha & Mr. Aditya Respondent Shah, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial)]

The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Ex-

Resolution Professional of CD- IMP Powers Ltd. under Section 61 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code') challenging the impugned order dated 19.12.2023, passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal,

Ahmedabad Bench (Adjudicating Authority), while disposing

IA/987(AHM)2023, IA/993(AHM)2023, IA/1354(AHM)2023,

IA/620(AHM)2023, IA/942(AHM)202, IA/1097(AHM)2023,

IA/1098(AHM)2023 and IA/1298(AHM)2023 in CP (IB) 203/AHM/2020

whereby certain adverse remarks have been made by Ld. Adjudicating

Authority precisely in paragraph no. 74, 84, 85 and 87 of the impugned

order.

2. Necessary facts required for the disposal of the instant appeal are that

the CIRP against the CD was commenced vide order dated 29.03.2022 of the

Adjudicating Authority passed in CP (IB) No. 203 of 2020 and the appellant

herein was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and he made

the public announcement on 02.04.2020.

3. It is further reflected that after filing of the claims by the creditor the

CoC was formed by the IRP comprising of 11 financial creditors and the first

meeting of the CoC was held on 28.04.2022 wherein the aforesaid IRP was

appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP).

4. It is further reflected that in pursuance of the issuance of Form G,

Twelve Expression of Interest (EOI) were received and a final list of 12

Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRA's) was issued by the RP on

17.07.2022, out of which 9 PRA's complied with the conditions of EOI and

the final list of 9 PRA's was prepared and also Mr. Ram Niwas Dhoot who is

the Promoter of the CD was also considered eligible to submit the plan as

the CD was/is a MSME and finally 4 Resolution Plans were submitted.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 2 of 18

5. It is further reflected that on 23.09.2022, the CoC authorised the RP

to seek extension of CIRP period by 90 days which was granted vide order

dated 09.10.2022 of Ld. Adjudicating Authority passed in IA No. 839 of

2022.

6. It is also reflected that ultimately 4 Resolution Plans were received by

the RP and CoC entered into negotiation with all the 4 Resolution Applicants

and in its 8th meeting held on 21.12.2022 the CoC asked the RP to differ the

agenda items for voting on the plans and to submit an application to the

adjudicating authority to seek further extension of the CIRP by 60 days and

an opportunity was also given to the Resolution Applicants to submit their

revised and final financial offer.

7. It is further reflected that RP accordingly filed IA No. 102 of 2023

seeking extension/exclusion of 60 days which was allowed by Ld.

Adjudicating Authority and the RP was directed to complete the process up

to 23.03.2023.

8. It is further reflected that on the basis of the Resolution passed in the

10th meeting of the CoC held on 21.03.2023, the IRP moved an application

for extension of 45 days to the CIRP period and which was accordingly

granted by the adjudicating authority and thereafter the CoC directed the

RP to open the voting window for a period of 22 days for the CoC members

to cast their votes.

9. It is also reflected that after 21 days of opening of aforesaid voting

window the Banks held a Joint Lender Meeting (JLM) on 12.04.2023 and

directed the RP to abandon the voting process as one of the Resolution

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 3 of 18 Applicant had submitted a proposal for certain structural changes in the

Resolution Plan and on this the voting process was abandoned mid-way.

10. It is also evident that 12th meeting of the CoC was held on 25.05.2023

whereon two Resolution Plans were put to vote however the voting could not

take place and finally the CoC directed the RP to put the plans to vote and

for that purpose the voting window was opened till 15.06.2023 which was

further extended up to 27.07.2023 and finally no plan was approved by the

CoC.

11. It is also reflected that the 13th Meeting of the CoC was held on

10.07.2023, wherein the RP was directed by the CoC to move an application

before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for extension/exclusion of 60 days. On

28.07.2023, the meeting of the CoC was adjourned at the request of the

participants asking RP to circulate brief note in terms of Regulation 39 (3)

(b) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and thereafter 14th CoC meeting was held

on 31.07.2023, to consider the email sent by the one PRA i.e. Mr. Ram

Niwas Dhoot and his request was accordingly rejected. In the same meeting

of the CoC the RP asked the CoC to consider fresh publication of Form G

before considering liquidation of the CD, however the same was rejected as

the extended period of 487 days was coming to an end on 31.07.2023, IA

No. 987 of 2023, was moved by the Resolution Professional before the

Tribunal for passing necessary orders and it is with regard to the disposal of

the said IA No. 987 of 2023 and the other IA's mentioned herein before, the

aforesaid remarks were made by the Ld. Adjudicating authority against the

appellant and aggrieved by the same the instant appeal has been preferred.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 4 of 18

12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no occasion for

the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to have recorded adverse

remarks/observations against the appellant without taking into

consideration that the appellant has constantly demonstrated dedication

towards the revival of the Corporate Debtor and throughout the process the

appellant was acting under the directions of the CoC.

13. It is further submitted that there is no obligation on the IRP or the RP

to have filed any progress report unless asked for and therefore the remarks

of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority with regard to non-filing of the progress

reports is not substantiated by any provision of law as there was no specific

direction by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to file such progress reports.

14. It is further submitted that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has also

recorded adverse remarks against the appellant for causing multiple

revisions and canvassing for a specific Resolution Plan in utter disregard to

the fact that the CoC on its own has decided to consider Suo Moto the 2 nd

Revision to the Resolution Plan submitted by the Promoter Resolution

Applicant before casting vote by any of the CoC Member and the Appellant

had no option but to act upon the Resolution Passed by the CoC.

15. It is further submitted that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not

considered the fact that the CoC had conducted negotiations with the PRA's

and the value of the plans offered by the PRA who was not a promoter of the

CD was extremely low and the plan as offered by the Ex-Promoter of the CD

contained many provisions of release of their personal guarantees extended

by his family members and the CoC was not inclined to releasing these

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 5 of 18 personal guarantees and this deadlock prolonged negotiations between the

parties and the appellant was not at all in fault with regard to the same.

16. It is further submitted that despite the prolong negotiation and

revision of the Resolution Plan the CoC did not approve any of the

Resolution Plan and on that the appellant recommended the liquidation of

the CD in accordance with Section 33 (2) of the Code and on an application

moved in pursuance of the same the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has initiated

liquidation process by passing the impugned order however unnecessarily

recorded adverse remarks against the appellant.

17. It is further submitted that the Resolution plan was amended only

once, owing to the suggested revision by the PRA to which the CoC has

expressly decided to consider and thus the revision and the voting on the

revised plan has been done only once.

18. It is further submitted that the RP has not canvassed for the

acceptance of any Resolution Plan and have merely articulated the

provisions of the Code and the CIRP Process Regulations and only informed

the CoC of its options for the purpose of taking a decision for the betterment

of the CD and the same cannot be considered as canvassing.

19. It is further submitted that the appellant is having an unblemished

record and the adverse remarks recorded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority

being not commensurate with the factual aspect of the case would bring a

bad name to the otherwise good reputation of the appellant and the same

are liable to be expunged or modified.

20. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/COC while relying on the reply filed

by it before this appellate tribunal submits that so far as the adverse

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 6 of 18 remarks recorded in para no. 74 and 84 of the impugned order are

concerned, the RP had filed all applications including those seeking

extension of CIRP as and when instructed by the CoC.

21. It is also submitted that in the 8th meeting of the CoC held on

21.12.2022, the Resolution Plans were to be put to vote, however as the

discussions with the Resolution Applicant was ongoing the CoC decided that

the final up dated Resolution Plans would be considered by 15.01.2023 and

thereafter directed the RP to seek extension of time from Ld. Adjudicating

Authority.

22. It is further submitted that in the meeting of the CoC held on

20.04.2023, the discussion was held with regard to the eligibility of the

Resolution Applicant and owing to the confusion regarding the viability and

eligibility of the Resolution Plans the CoC requested the Appellant for

extension of the time period for e-voting leading to the delay in filing of IA

No. 942 of 2023 before Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

23. It is further submitted that so far as the adverse remarks emerging in

para no. 85 of the judgment with regard to laxity in filing progress reports

are concerned the appellant regularly informed in each meeting of the CoC

with regard to the financial and operational status of the CD and have also

filed progress reports before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

24. It is further submitted that so far as the adverse remarks recorded in

para no. 87 of the impugned order pertaining to canvassing of the CoC to

vote on the Resolution Plan, are concerned the appellant has informed the

CoC in its 8th meeting held on 21.12.2022 pertaining to his determination

with regard to Section 43, 45, 50 and 66 of the Code and as per the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 7 of 18 direction of the CoC the Resolution Applicants were also called for one final

round of discussions on 28.12.2022. While in the 9th meeting of the CoC

held on 04.01.2023, final bids of the Resolution Applicants were opened and

the CoC desired a comparative statement of the financial proposals and the

CoC itself desired that the meeting be adjourned which was subsequently

held on 06.01.2023 whereon the CoC took note that only two Resolution

Plans were compliant.

25. It is further submitted that in the 10th CoC meeting held on

21.02.2023, the appellant informed the CoC about the compliant of the one

Resolution Plan with the Code and also with request for Resolution

Plans(RFRP) however the CoC decided to adjourn the meeting which was

resumed on 21.02.2023 wherein the appellant clarified the issues, which

could not be considered as negotiations and the Resolution Plans were put

to vote and in the same meeting the CoC further directed the appellant to

seek further extension of CIRP by 45 days.

26. It is further submitted that on 25.05.2023 the CoC voted on the

Resolution Plan and none of the Resolution Plan was approved and in 13th

meeting of the CoC held on 10.07.2023, owing to the confusion among the

members of the CoC the appellant invited the members to submit their

views and the members in turn agrees to vote on the Resolution Plans and

appellant also urged for the completion of the voting till 17.07.2023.

27. It is further submitted that in the 14th meeting of the CoC held on

28.07.2023, the appellant informed the CoC about the scheme of Regulation

39 (3) (b) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 informing that in case none of the

Resolution Plan is approved, the one receiving the highest votes has to be

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 8 of 18 put for vote again. The CoC however decided to discuss the matter internally

and requested the appellant to circulate a note to enable the said

discussion.

28. It is also submitted that the appellant only articulated the provisions

of the Code and relevant Regulations as and when requested by the CoC and

despite his efforts none of the Resolution Plan was approved.

29. It is also submitted that since the issue is with regard to the adverse

remarks recorded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority against the RP, the

same is not adversarial, however the prayers made by the appellant in the

Appeal are not contested by the answering Respondent, in view that the

appellant has provided adequate support for the CIRP of the CD and has

guided the CoC appropriately and had acted upon the instructions of the

CoC.

30. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Counsel

for the Respondent and perused the record. It is however recorded that at

the time of conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, we had granted time to

the parties to file their written submissions, but none of the party has filed

the same.

31. Perusal of the record would reveal that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has

recorded following adverse remarks against the appellant including the

impugned remarks recorded in para no. 74, 84, 85 and 87 of the impugned

order; para 60, 62, 66,68,74,84,85 and 87 is reproduced as under:

"60. The present I.A. was filed on 27.04.2023, whereas affidavits were affirmed on 10.03.2023. There is a delay of more than 1.5 months in submitting the application in physical form. Apparently, the application has been filed to take the second progress report on record.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 9 of 18

62. The present I.A. is affirmed on 12.07.2023. The physical copy on record was submitted in the registry of this Bench on 16.08.2023.

66. It is not out of place to note here that extended period of CIRP expired on 01.06.2023. CoC authorised extension for 60 days which was to end on 31.07.2023. Application was received on 16.08.2023 after the end of the period for which extension was sought. As such the same has become in-fructuous.

68. The present application was affirmed on 01.07.2023 and was physically received at the Registry of this Bench on 18.09.2023. Apparently, there is a delay of more than one and half months in submission of physical copy of the present application.

74. It is observed from the above conduct that the RP was in the habit of e-filing the application and the hard copies of the application were submitted very late and as such, these applications were delayed and listed belatedly due to lack on the part of the RP/Advocate of RP. Such conduct is deplored by this Tribunal.

84. As on the date of the various extension applications being IA 942 of 2023, COC had no resolution plan pending before them and had already rejected the plans given by the various PRA's. We also find that the RP has belatedly filed the applications seeking extension of the CIRP period and at times when the extended period of CIRP sought was already over and as such in our view the RP was lax in pursuing the extension applications.

85. In fact, we clearly find that RP was lax in the matter of even filing the progress reports. Only 4 such reports were filed during the entire period of 487 days, one of which certainly was filed at the time when he was the IRP. Even the liquidation application was filed after 41 days from the date of rejection of the plan by COC. In our view such application should have been filed not later than 7 days from the decision of the COC. These issues are for IBBI to examine and we direct the Registry of this Tribunal to forward a copy of this order to IBBI for information and necessary action, if any.

87. From the records placed before us and as recorded herein above, Applicant in IA 993 of 2023 has revised his resolution plan 3 times and again once the voting was over. Regulation 39(1A) of the IBBI (Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016 permit revision in the Resolution Plan only once. We observe that the Applicant has revised the plan 3 times which too is a violation of the Regulation. We do see a breach of the said Regulation by the RP who permitted such a plan to be placed before the COC and thereafter canvassing the COC to vote on the same or otherwise to reset the process to Form G, our

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 10 of 18 observations are based on minutes of the 14th COC meeting. IBBI and IPA are requested to note the same and sensitize the RP's to refrain from taking any side during the CIRP process since they are Court appointed independent professionals who are not supposed to take any side during the process".

32. So far as the remarks recorded under para 60 and 62 of the impugned

order are concerned the same are pertaining to the IA No. 620 of 2023 and

IA No. 942 of 2023 and it is stated therein that IA No. 620 of 2023 was filed

on 27.04.2023 while affidavits were affirmed on 10.03.2023. Similarly, it is

stated that in IA No. 942 of 2023 the application is shown to have been

affirmed on 12.07.2023 but the physical copy of the same could be filed only

on 16.08.2023. In para no. 66 of the impugned order it is stated that

extended period of CIRP of the CD was expired on 01.06.2023 and CoC

authorized extension for 60 days, which was to end on 31.07.2023 and the

IA No. 942 of 2023 was received in the tribunal on 16.08.2023 after the end

of the period, for which the extension was sought and by that time the said

application has become infructuous.

33. The record would further reveal that the CoC has authorized the

appellant to move an appropriate application in its meeting dated

10.07.2023. The appellant in para no. 7.1.22 of the memo of appeal has

stated to have filed this application on 13.07.2023. Respondent CoC has not

denied the fact of filing of IA No. 942 of 2023 on 13.07.2023. The appellant

however, in para no. 1.4 of the appeal has admitted that IA No. 942 of 2023,

was filed with the delay of 40 days and explained this delay as has been

caused due to non-approval of requisite Resolution by the CoC. It is further

stated by the appellant that the minutes of the 12th meeting of the CoC, held

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 11 of 18 on 25.05.2023 were circulated on 27.05.2023 and e-voting window was

scheduled to close on 30.05.2023 and on the request of CoC multiple

extension of e-voting were granted and ultimately the same was closed on

27.07.2023 and since the CIRP period expired in between, he convened 13th

CoC meeting on 10.07.2023 seeking the approval of the CoC and thereafter

the application was affirmed and e-filed on 13.07.2023.

34. From the above observation of the Adjudicating Authority made in

para no. 66 of the impugned judgment and also from the contention of the

Appellant in his Appeal, it appears that the physical copy of the IA No. 942

of 2023 was received in the office of the Tribunal on 16.08.2023. Thus, it

may be safely concluded that the meeting of the CoC which has been called

by the appellant/RP on 10.07.2023 may very well be convened at an earlier

date as it was in the knowledge of RP that the extended time of the CIRP was

going to expire on 01.06.2023 or even the CoC members may be requested

to vote on the agenda of extension of time and certainly the hard copy of the

application appears to have been filed with delay.

35. Similarly, in para no. 68 of the impugned order Ld. Adjudicating

Authority has observed with regard to IA No. 1097 of 2023 that the same

was affirmed on 01.07.2023 and was physically received in the Registry of

the Adjudicating Authority on 18.09.2023. Likewise, in para no. 71 and 74 it

is observed with regard to IA No. 1098 of 2023 that this application was

affirmed on 09.05.2023, and was received in the Registry on 18.09.2023 and

it is on the basis of the discussion made in the aforesaid paragraphs with

regard to IA No. 620 of 2023, 942 of 2023, 1097 of 2023 and 1098 of 2023,

it is observed in para no. 74 that appellant is in habit of e-filing the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 12 of 18 application and hard copies of the same were submitted very late. This

observation made in para no. 74 of the impugned judgment, which is based

on the facts stated in earlier paragraphs of the judgment appears to be

based on correct facts and could not be said to have been recorded without

any substance. Thus, we do not find any good reason to expunge or modify

these observations/Remarks being based on correct factual matrix.

36. In para no. 84 of the impugned judgment Ld. Adjudicating Authority

has recorded that on the date of extension application being IA No. 942 of

2023, CoC had no resolution plan pending and by that time had rejected the

Resolution Plans submitted by various PRA's and RP has filed the

application seeking extension of the CIRP period with delay and at times

when the extended period of CIRP, sought has already expired and as such

RP was lax in presenting the extension application. We have already held

earlier in the judgment that extension application 942 of 2023 has been

moved by the appellant/RP with delay and it has been admitted by the RP

also and this application was admittedly moved when the time sought to be

extended was already over and admittedly the application has become

infructuous. So the observation/remarks of the adjudicating authority in

para No. 84 of the Judgment is also factually correct and is not required to

be interfered with.

37. Coming to the impugned para no. 85 by which the appellant is also

aggrieved, Ld. Adjudicating Authority has stated therein that the appellant

was lax in filing the progress reports and only four such reports have been

filed during the entire period of 487 days. This observation of the

Adjudicating Authority, in our considered opinion, is not substantiated from

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 13 of 18 facts of the case, as available on record. Ld. Adjudicating Authority while

making such observations has not stated any order of it by which any duty

has been entrusted on the RP to file periodical progress reports and has not

even mentioned the relevant provisions of either of the Code or of the

Regulations where under the IRP or RP is duty bound to submit periodical

reports of the progress of the Resolution of the CD. Thus, we hold that this

observation of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is not substantiated from the

established facts of the case and would not be read as adverse against the

appellant.

38. In second part of the impugned para no. 85, the Remarks has been

made by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority with regard to filing of liquidation

initiation application after 41 days from the date of rejection of the

Resolution Plan by the CoC and according to Ld. Adjudicating Authority the

same should have been filed within 7 days. In the time line provided in the

impugned order the Resolution plan is shown to have been finally rejected

by the COC on 31.07.2023 and the application for getting further direction

of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority was e-filed on 24.08.2023. Certainly this

application has been filed with delay. Thus, this observation of the

Adjudicating Authority is also based on correct facts and is not required to

be interfered with.

39. Lastly, the appellant appears to be aggrieved by the observations of

Ld. Adjudicating Authority made under para no. 87 of the impugned order.

In para no. 87 Ld. Adjudicating Authority has observed that the applicant in

IA 993 of 2023 has revised his Resolution Plan three times and again once

the voting was over and has referred to Regulation 39 (1) (A) of the CIRP

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 14 of 18 Regulations, 2016 which permits revision in the Resolution Plan only once

and goes on to hold that the appellant has revised the plan three times in

violation of the aforesaid Regulation. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has

also observed that the RP has also canvassed the CoC to vote in favour the

the said Resolution Plan or to issue the fresh Form G and thereafter the

IBBI and IPA were requested to note the same and sensitize the RP to refrain

from taking any side during the CIRP.

40. The appellant in para no. 7.1.37 of the appeal has explained this

scenario in terms that he did not permit multiple amendment/ modification

in the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant and it was

only after the negotiations of the CoC in the 10th meeting held on

21.02.2023, and continued on 21.03.2023 the plan was revised by the

Resolution Applicant and the e-voting process was abandoned on

12.04.2023 at the behest of the CoC members and they voluntarily proposed

to revise Resolution amount. It is also stated that Members of the CoC had a

JLM and agreed to consider proposal of RA Mr. R.N Dhoot regarding further

improvement in the plan and in this background the Resolution Plan was

revised and therefore there was only one amendment to the plan.

41. It is also stated by the appellant that the Resolution Applicants

Voluntarily proposed to update revised plan before voting, cannot be termed

as amendment in the plan. It is also highlighted that the CoC abandoned

the voting midway as Mr. R.N Dhoot has proposed some further

improvements in the plan and as the lenders had conducted the JLM and

the call was made from their end, RP had no option but to abandon the e-

voting process and thereafter the CoC negotiated the plan amount with the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 15 of 18 RA which became the second revision and the same has occasioned on

account of the expiry of bank guarantees in the meantime and the increase

in the amount towards release of Personal Guarantees (PG's) however there

was no change in the amount earmarked in the Resolution of the CD.

42. We also notice that the CoC in its reply filed with regard to the appeal,

in para no. 19 stated that in the 14th meeting of the CoC held on

28.07.2023, the appellant had informed the CoC of the scheme of

Regulation 39 (3) (B) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 stating that in case none

of the Resolution Plan is approved, the plan receiving the highest assenting

votes has to be put for vote again. It is also stated that the CoC decided to

discuss the matter internally and requested the appellant to circulate a note

which was accordingly circulated and the RP has only articulated the

provisions of the Code and Regulations as and when requested by the CoC.

43. The CoC in para no. 20 of its reply has stated about the consideration

of the revised Resolution Plan of Mr. Dhoot and incidentally in para no. 23

has clearly stated that the appellant has provided adequate support for the

CIRP of the CD and has guided the CoC appropriately and acted upon the

instructions of the CoC.

44. Thus, the above factual matrix would reveal that it was the CoC which

was negotiating with the RA's and specifically with the Promoter Mr. R.N

Dhoot and it was on the instance of the CoC certain revisions were made by

the RA in the plan. It is also reflected that CoC is not having any grievance

with the performance of the appellant and whatever has been done by the

appellant appears to have been done on the direction of the CoC. We recall

at this juncture that the Resolution of the CD is primarily driven by the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 16 of 18 creditors and the CoC is to take appropriate decisions in its commercial

wisdom with regard to the same and the role of the RP or IRP as the case

may be is of supervising the same in accordance with law. Thus the revision

of the plan by the Resolution Applicant at the instance of the CoC and a

reminder given to the CoC members by the RP pertaining to Regulation 39 of

the CIRP Regulations, 2016, in our considered opinion, may not be termed

as canvassing. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the

observations of the Adjudicating Authority with regard to the fact that the

appellant was canvassing for approval of any particular plan does not

appears to be based on facts and circumstances of the case and therefore we

hold the observation of the Adjudicating Authority so far as they are

concerned with imputing allegations to the appellant/RP with regard to

canvassing amongst the CoC members for approval of any particular

resolution plan are not based on correct facts and therefore shall not be

read adverse to the interest of the appellant.

45. Thus, for the reasons given here in above and keeping in view all the

facts and circumstances of the instant appeal, the appeal is partly allowed

in following terms:

(i)We do not find any substance for interference so far as the remarks

made by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in para no. 74, 84 and in second

part of the para No. 85 (pertaining to late filing of the Liquidation

commencement application) of the impugned order are concerned and the

prayer of the appellant to expunge or modify these Remarks is hereby

rejected.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 17 of 18

(ii) So far as remarks made by Ld. Adjudicating Authority in First part of

Para No. 85 (pertaining to the alleged laxity on the part of the RP in filing

the progress reports) and in para no. 87 of the Judgment are concerned,

the same for the reasons given by us in the judgment, shall not be read

adverse to the interest of the Appellant/RP.

(iii) There is no order as to costs.

(iv)Pending IA's if any are also closed.

[Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) New Delhi.

27.02.2026.

sr

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 363 of 2024 18 of 18