Sagar Dineshchandra Jariwala vs George Samuel & Ors

Sagar Dineshchandra Jariwala ....Appellant Vs.

Mr. George Samuel & Ors. ...Respondents For Appellant: Ms. Aastha Mehta, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Amir Arsiwala, Mr. Amey Hadwale, Ms. Geeta Lundwani, Advocates with Mr. George Samuel in person for R-1/ Liquidator. Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Mr. Akshit Pradhan, Advocates for R-2 to 4.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

15.02.2022: Heard Ms. Aastha Mehta, Learned Counsel for the

Appellant, Shri Amir Arsiwala, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and

Shri Aayush Agarwala, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. With

the consent of the parties, Appeal be disposed of at the admission stage

itself.

2. This Appeal has been filed against an order dated 01.03.2021 by which

the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),

Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Court-2, has rejected Resolution Plan which

was submitted by the Promoters of Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. through

Dineshchandra Bhagwandas Jariwala & Ors.

2

3. The Appellant's case is that the Corporate Debtor is registered MSME

and Resolution Plan was submitted which was higher than the liquidation

value but the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has not approved the said

Resolution Plan. After rejection of the Resolution Plan of the Appellant, the

Adjudicating Authority has further observed to proceed with the liquidation

and Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submits that there has already been

publication of notice for auction as a going concern under Regulation 32 (e)

& (f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process)

Regulations, 2016 but the auction was unsuccessful.

4. After having heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned

Counsel for the Respondents, we see no reason to interfere with the

impugned order insofar as it refuses to approve the Resolution Plan filed by

the Appellant. It is well settled that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is not

to be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority and even by the Appellate

Tribunal unless the decision is not in accordance with Section 61. We, thus,

do not find any error in the order rejecting the Resolution Plan filed by the

Appellant.

5. Now, Learned Counsel for the Appellant after obtaining instructions

further submitted that the Appellant is ready to participate in the liquidation

proceedings for giving their bid as going concern. Learned Counsel for the

Appellant submits that the Appellant's endeavor is to somehow save the

Corporate Debtor and run the Corporate Debtor because large number of

employees are working in it.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1060 of 2021 3

6. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the Appeal insofar as it

challenges the order dated 01.03.2021 need no interference with liberty to

the Appellant to participate in auction of the Corporate Debtor as a going

concern as provided in Regulation 32 (e) & (f). Learned Counsel for the

Liquidator submitted that 90 days' time as provided under Regulation 32(4)

is already over and liberty be granted to Liquidator to issue a fresh auction

notice to enable all concerned including the Appellant to participate. We,

thus, allow 30 days' further time to the Liquidator to issue fresh notice for

auction as a going concern in which Appellant shall be at liberty to

participate. The Liquidator thereafter shall proceed in accordance with

Liquidation Regulations, 2016.

7. With these observations, the Appeal is disposed off.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1060 of 2021