Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Sushant Aneja & Anr vs Madhusudan Sharma Rp For J.D. Aneja ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal8 August 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a corporate debtor is an MSME, Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not apply, so the promoter of the corporate debtor is not disqualified from submitting a resolution plan. An appellate claim that shareholders were under-valued cannot be entertained on surmise; the appellant must establish the asserted change in share value by documentary material showing it existed on the date of the corporate insolvency resolution process. A financial creditor who has been paid 100% of its principal amount under the approved resolution plan cannot succeed in challenging the plan on the ground that it was denied interest at double the principal, and no case is made out to interfere with the approval on that basis. An allegation that the promoter committed fraud, raised by the resolution professional before the Adjudicating Authority, is not a ground on which the Appellate Tribunal will express any opinion absent an order of the Adjudicating Authority on that allegation.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 812 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF: Sushant Aneja & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus Mr. Madhusudan Sharma R.P. for J.D. Aneja Edibles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 813 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF: Sushant Aneja & Anr. ...Appellants

Versus Mr. Madhusudan Sharma R.P. for J.D. Aneja Edibles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Arora and Mr. Shivam Thapar, Advocates ORDER

08.08.2019 These two appeals have been preferred by the common

Appellant(s) against common order dated 7th June, 2019 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company law Tribunal), Jaipur Bench whereby

the 'resolution plan' submitted by the promoter of 'J.D. Aneja Edibles Private

Limited' has been approved under Section 31 of the 'I&B Code'. Learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the plan of 'Promoter' has

been approved. However, it is accepted that 'J.D. Aneja Edibles Private Limited'

is one of the 'Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise' ('MSME') and therefore,

Section 29A of the 'I&B Code' is not applicable. The promoters had a right to file

a plan.

One of the main ground taken is that the shareholders have not been

provided with correct value of the shares. According to him, during the -2-

'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' the value of each of the shares were of

Rs.2000/- approximately. However, merely on surmises, we cannot entertain

the appeal in absence of any documents to show as on the date of 'Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process', the share of Rs. 10/- had increased to Rs. 2000/-

which cannot be appreciated.

In other appeal, the Appellant (Shareholder) have claimed that they are

also 'Financial Creditors'. The grievance is that they have not been provided with

interest which was double of the principal amount. However, as we find that the

Appellant (Financial Creditor) have been provided with 100% of the principal

amount, no case is made out to interfere with the approval of the resolution plan.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the 'Resolution

Professional' has already brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority that

fraud has been committed by the promoter. However, in absence of any order of

the Adjudicating Authority, we are not expressing any opinion and also we find

no ground to interfere with the appeals. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

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

[ Kanthi Narahari ] Member (Technical) /ns/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 812 & 813 of 2019

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free