Rahul Aneja vs Sushant Aneja & Anr

Rahul Aneja ...Appellant Vs Sushant Aneja & Anr. ....Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sumit Shukla, Advocate

For Respondents: Mr. Bharat Arora and Mr. Shivam Thapak, Advocates

ORDER

16.01.2020 Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondents. It

appears that there was a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (in short CIRP)

initiated by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 against the Corporate Debtor- J.D. Aneja

Edibles Pvt. Ltd. and during the period of CIRP, the Appellant along with his wife

in consortium tendered Resolution Plan as the Corporate Debtor is a Micro,

Small and Medium Enterprises (in short MSME). The Plan came up to be

approved by the Impugned Order and in paragraph-27 of the Impugned Order,

the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Jaipur Bench), Jaipur observed that

Committee of Creditors took into consideration all the aspects and had taken a

commercial decision in view of the Resolution Plan. In the final operative part of

the Impugned Order (paragraph-31 of the Impugned Order) while approving

Resolution Plan directed in sub para (i) as under:

"31. ...

(i) That the dissenting FC even though a related party

shall be paid the principal amount due and as agreed before

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 699 of 2019 Page 1 of 3 this Tribunal by the Resolution applicant before payment is

made to the equity shareholders as contemplated under the

resolution plan."

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by this

sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph-31 of the Impugned Order. In the Appeal in

paragraph-13, the Appellant claims that the Resolution Applicant never agreed

before the learned Tribunal for such amendment in the Resolution Plan. Learned

Counsel submits that because of the above amendment directed by the

Adjudicating Authority, the Plan has become unviable and thus, this Appeal was

required to be filed.

3. We are prima facie of the view that after a direction has been given by the

Adjudicating Authority, on the basis of statement made, concerned party cannot

back out to get relief in Appeal. Before us the Appellant is trying to say that the

Appellant- Resolution Applicant never agreed to such modification. We find that

it would be appropriate that the Appellant first moves the Tribunal for

clarification if the Appellant claims that there is a typographical error or some

other error has crept in.

4. We dispose of the present Appeal with liberty to the Appellant to file a

clarification application before the Adjudicating Authority with regard to the

above paragraph-31(i) of the Impugned Order. After the Adjudicating Authority

passes order with regard to the clarification in the application, the Appellant

would be at liberty to challenge the present Impugned Order along with order as

may be passed in the clarification application.

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 699 of 2019 Page 2 of 3

5. Parties to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 31st January 2020,

by which date Appellant should file the clarification Application.

Appeal is disposed accordingly.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical)

Akc/GC

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 699 of 2019 Page 3 of 3