Rajeev K. Arora vs Paramount Wheels Pvt Ltd & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Rajeev Arora ...Appellant

Versus Paramount Wheels Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents Through its Liquidator Mr. Mukesh Khathuria & Ors.

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Kathuria, for R-1, Liquidator Advocate Darryl Periera, Advocate Natasha Kasad, for R-2

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

31.05.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Learned Counsel for

Respondent No. 2 is present.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 25th January, 2022

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai

Bench, Court-III) in I.A. No. 220/2021. By which Order, the Adjudicating

Authority has directed for liquidation. The Appellant who was the ex-Director of

the Corporate Debtor being MSME filed a Resolution Plan in the year 2020 which

plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 09th September, 2020. 2

Subsequent to the Approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority,

the Plan could not be implemented nor Performance Guarantee was submitted

by the Appellant. State Bank of India filed an Application for liquidation on which

Application, an Order has been passed on 25.01.2022 for Liquidation.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that audited accounts were

not maintained by the Resolution Professional due to which the Appellant could

not comply with the submissions of Performance Guarantee and other

conditions. He submits that there has been correspondence with the Resolution

Professional and it was on account of Resolution Professional's inaction that

Appellant could not comply. He further submits that he is only aggrieved by the

Observations made in the Order against the Appellant in paragraph 4 of the

Order impugned and he has no grievance with regard to the Order of Liquidation.

4. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant

and perused the record.

5. The Appellant who was the Successful Resolution Applicant whose plan

was approved as early as September, 2020, could not implement the plan for

more than a period of one year. The Performance Guarantee which was required

to be submitted, has not been submitted even in the period of one year. Learned

Counsel for the Appellant submits that requirement of submissions Performance

Guarantee within seven days was done away by the Monitoring Committee. Be

that as it may, the net result is that neither Performance Guarantee was

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 604 of 2022 3

submitted nor plan was implemented hence the submissions of the Appellant

that entire blame is on the RP does not commend us. The Appellant was

Successful Resolution Applicant and he cannot escape from his responsibility to

implement the plan. We thus do not find any error in the order impugned. The

Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 604 of 2022