Uv Asset Reconstruction Company ... vs Aircel Ltd. Through Its Monitoring ...

UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants

Versus

Aircel Ltd. Through Its Monitoring Committee ...Respondent

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 334 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants

Versus

Dishnet Wireless Ltd. Through Its Monitoring Committee ...Respondent

Present: For Appellants: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sanjukta Roy, Mr. Rajat Sinha, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Misha, Ms. Charu Bansal and Ms. Mehak Nayak, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

01.03.2024: These two appeal have been filed against order of the same

date 27.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company

Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court-II by which two I.As. filed by the

Appellant for substituting another entity namely UV Stressed Assets

Management Private Limited has been rejected. Appellant was the Resolution

Applicant whose Resolution Plan was approved by order dated 09.06.2020.

Cont'd.../ -2-

The Appellant filed an application praying for substitution of Resolution

Applicant with another entity, which has been rejected by the Adjudicating

Authority by the impugned order.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in view of the circular

issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Asset Reconstruction Companies cannot

be Resolution Applicant unless they have achieved certain net worth which

the present Appellant has not. Reserved Bank of India has also issued show

cause notice against the Appellant which matter has been taken before the

Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is pending consideration. Learned counsel

for the Appellant submits that the Appellant cannot be Resolution Applicant

in view of the clouds on the eligibility of the Appellant, hence, he has prayed

for substituting another Resolution Applicant.

3. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing learned counsel for the

Applicants as well as learned counsel for the Monitoring Committee took the

view that new Resolution Applicant cannot be brought in nor can be

substituted with another Resolution Applicant and rejected the application.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant cannot be

Resolution Applicant in view of the clouds on the eligibility on the Appellant,

hence, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have been found certain via media

with regard to implementation of the resolution or initiate fresh process.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel for the Monitoring Committee.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.333 & 334 of 2024 -3-

5. The present Appeal has been filed against the order by which

application filed by the Appellant has been rejected and we fully agree with

the reasons given by the Adjudicating Authority for rejecting the application

filed by the Appellant for substituting another Resolution Applicant in place

of the Appellant. When plan of the Appellant as Resolution Applicant was

approved, the Adjudicating Authority rightly refused to substitute another

Resolution Applicant, in which order no infirmity is found.

6. In so far as submission of the Appellant that some way forward has to

be looked into. It is always open for the Monitoring Committee as well as the

Appellant to make appropriate application before the Adjudicating Authority

to find out a way forward and to proceed further and it is for the Adjudicating

Authority to take call on said applications and decide the same in accordance

with law. Subject to the liberty above, both the appeals are dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.333 & 334 of 2024