A Ltd. and the B Ltd. had jointly submitted the Resolution Plan for taking over the Company. The same was approved unanimously by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and after that, the Resolution Plan was further approved
CS Professional · Insolvency - Law and Practice · PYQS · June 2022
A Ltd. and the B Ltd. had jointly submitted the Resolution Plan for taking over the Company. The same was approved unanimously by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and after that, the Resolution Plan was further approved by the Adjudicating Authority (AA). The approved Resolution Plan got executed, and the shares were allotted as per the terms of the approved Plan. All money in respect of 34% shares were paid by the A Ltd. and B Ltd. got 51% paid-up equity shares. Later, after 13 months of completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan (CIRP), the AA, on an application of B Ltd. made changes in Plan, thus increasing its shareholding to 75% and reducing the shareholding of A Ltd. to 10%. This was done as typographical/ clerical error brought to notice of AA. Discuss, based on case laws, whether A Ltd. will succeed in Appeal?
Answer & Explanation:
The facts of the case are similar to the case of QVC Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. United Tradeco FZC National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1351 of 2019 . When approved Resolution Plan was submitted by A Ltd. and B Ltd. jointly, then one party had no right to move the rectification of the said Resolution Plan, without the consent of another party. But the Adjudicating Authority has allowed this Application without any cogent reasons. It is pertinent to mention that the joint Resolution Plan was approved unanimously by the CoC and after that, the same was approved by the Adjudicating Authority. It shows that the Board of B Ltd, had also acknowledged and approved the allotment of 51% in terms of approved Resolution Plan to B Ltd. After the Board Resolution, B Ltd. had no right to say that there was a typographical/ clerical error in the Resolution Plan. After the acknowledgement by the Board of the B Ltd, there was no justification to allege that due to typographical error, 51,00,000 shares is erroneously typed, instead of 75,00,000 shares in the approved Resolution Plan, in the account of B Ltd.. It is important to mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court has not permitted the change in resolution plan after attaining the finality as decided in case of Rahul Jain vs. Rave Scans (P) Ltd., (2019) 10 SCC 548: 2019 . It is important to point out that the Tribunal in Company Appeal No.509 of 2018 in case of RGG Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Arun Kumar Gupta , has held that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to reopen resolution process under section 31 of the Code. The Adjudicating Authority failed to consider that the approved Resolution Plan which was a joint Resolution Plan by the A Ltd. and B Ltd. whereas the Application for rectification of the Resolution Plan is moved only by B Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction under Section 31 to allow the rectification in the approved Resolution Plan.
Topics: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
Related Questions in this Topic
- Mr. V. Ramaswamy is former Director of Corporate Debtor namely M/s Narmada Project Limited an application field with Res...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. K Sridhar and Mr. K. Murali are the Directors of M/s S & M Engineering Enterprises Limited (SMEEL). Unfortunately, b...