Sukhinder Singh vs Sumat Kumar Gupta

Sukhinder Singh & Anr. ....Appellants Vs.

Mr. Sumat Kumar Gupta, Resolution Professional of ...Respondents International Mega Food Park Ltd. & Ors.

For Appellants: Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Mr. Shivam Malhotra, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Rajansh Thukral, Ms. Surekha Thukral, Advocates for R1.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

05.07.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.05.2022 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chandigarh

Bench, Chandigarh by which order the Adjudicating Authority has decided IA

No. 716/2020. The Applicant in the Application has sought direction the

Respondent to deposit the performance guarantee immediately and in case of

failure, to forfeit the deposit of Rs.10 lakhs given as EMD as well as partial

Performance Security of Rs.1 Crore. Further direction was sought that in case

the Respondent agrees to take over the Corporate Debtor as per the Resolution

Plan already approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC), he may be asked to

match the resolution bid of Rs. 75.50 Crores. Further direction that in case of 2

failure of the Respondent/ Resolution Applicant to comply with the condition

of the Performance Guarantee, to permit the withdrawal of IA 615 & 616/2020

regarding approval of Resolution Plan and further to direct the CoC to

negotiate with the H-2 bidder to explore the possibility of resolution in a time-

bound manner.

3. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties disposed the

Application. By the order impugned one month time was allowed to H-1 bidder

to comply the Resolution Plan failing which it was directed that H-2 bid should

be considered by the CoC in case there is failure on the part of the Respondent

No.3- H-1 bidder.

4. The Appeal has been filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate

Debtor. It is submitted that repeated opportunities have been granted to the

H-1 bidder to comply however, till date the H-1 bidder has not complied the

terms and conditions of the Resolution Plan.

5. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the

Appellant and perused the record. The Adjudicating Authority itself has

limited indulgence to the H-1 providing that in event within a period of one

month the compliance is not made, the H-2 bid should be considered by the

CoC in event of failure on the part of the H-1. Application I.A 716/2020 was

decided by directions as contained in the order. We are of the view that the

order passed by the Adjudicating Authority giving one month time as a last

opportunity is just and reasonable. It goes without saying that endeavors are

always to be taken to ensure the resolution of the Corporate Debtor and in

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 715 of 2022 3

event within a period of one month the compliance is made towards resolution,

no exception can be taken. The consequence of non-compliance has already

been provided in the order enabling the CoC to negotiate with H-2.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for H-1 submits that the compliance has

already been made which statement has been disputed by the Counsel for the

Appellant.

7. We, in this Appeal, are not concerned with the question as to whether

the compliance of the order dated 30.05.2022 has been taken or not. It is for

the Adjudicating Authority, if such issue arises, to consider and take

appropriate decision.

8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to entertain this

Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Anjali/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 715 of 2022