Sandeep Sharma & Anr vs Sunil Kumar Jain Resolution ...

Sandeep Sharma & Anr. ....Appellants Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain, Resolution Professional (RP) & Ors. ....Respondents

Present:

Appellants: Mr. Anant Malik, Mr. Sarthak Sharma and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocates. Respondents: Mr. Vishal Agarwal, Advocate for R1.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

23.11.2020: Appellants, who are the members of the suspended Board of

Directors of the Corporate Debtor- 'M/s. Vas Data Services Pvt. Ltd.', have

preferred the instant appeal assailing the order dated 18th September, 2020

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New

Delhi, Court-III by virtue whereof the Appellants' application alleging conducting

of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process not in accordance with law and the

required information not having been provided to the Appellants came to be

dismissed on the ground that since the Resolution Plan has been approved, the

only option available to the Appellants was to object to the Resolution Plan, if

any, genuine legal objection was available to them.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the Appellants, we find that the

Appellants sought conducting of de novo Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Contd/-...........

-2-

Process from 7th meeting of the Committee of Creditors onwards including

issuance of fresh Expression of Interest. The Adjudicating Authority has taken

note of the fact that the Resolution Professional on 24th June, 2020 had asked

the Appellants to file an undertaking to maintain confidentiality so that a copy

of the proposed Resolution Plan could be provided to them. It appears that the

undertaking was filed on 1st July, 2020 and a copy of the Resolution Plan was

provided to the Appellants. It is only thereafter on 10th July, 2020, Committee of

Creditors convened its meeting to consider the proposed Resolution Plan which

came to be approved in its meeting conducted on 6th August, 2020. The

Adjudicating Authority also took note of the fact that the Appellants had, apart

from seeking records of minutes of meeting of the Committee of Creditors, also

sought video recording of such meeting. In the context of the prayer made before

the Adjudicating Authority that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process be

relegated back to the stage of issuance of Expression of Interest, the Adjudicating

Authority was justified in observing that the object of the Appellants was only to

defeat the timelines and protract the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process so

that it does not reach its logical conclusion. We also find that the Adjudicating

Authority took note of the fact that the copy of the proposed Resolution Plan had

already been provided to the Appellants prior to the approval of the Resolution

Plan and in the event of there being any objection, the Appellants were at liberty

to raise their objection before the Committee of Creditors before approval of the

Resolution Plan. The appropriate course left open to the Appellants, as of now,

is to raise an issue before the Adjudicating Authority at

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 989 of 2020 -3-

the stage of consideration of the Resolution Plan.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the

issue raised, in the nature of material irregularity in the process of the Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process, is bereft of substance. The Appellants are at

liberty to raise their grievances as regards the Committee of Creditors approved

Resolution Plan not conforming to law when such Resolution Plan is taken up

for consideration by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) AR/g

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 989 of 2020