The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ) held that the question of value cannot be raised post approval of resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors ( CoC ).
The Adjudicating Authority noticing the fact that Committee of Creditor has already approved the Resolution on 06.10.2022 has rejected the application. The Adjudicating Authority further observed that the application filed by a set of homebuyers has not been filed through Authorised Representative. Aggrieved by which order this appeal has been filed.
The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the observation of the Adjudicating Authority that application filed by a set of homebuyers has not been filed through Authorised Representative is incorrect. It was submitted that the application was authorised by the homebuyers and earlier Authorised Representative has withdrawn themselves, hence, the application was fully maintainable.
It was submitted that Appellant in 12th and 13th meeting of the CoC has raised issued of valuation. The question with regard to valuation report was placed before the CoC and deliberated and reply of the Resolution Professional who was Chairman of the CoC was also noticed in the meeting of the CoC.
The counsel for the Respondent has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramkrishna Forgings Limited vs. Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Professional of ACIL Ltd. & Anr decided on 21.11.2023. In the said case, after approval of the Resolution Plan question of valuation was sought to be raised and the Adjudicating Authority has directed for valuation, which order was set aside by the Supreme Court. The said judgment fully supports the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson and Barun Mitra, Member ( Technical ) observed that “We are of the view that the said observation made by the Adjudicating Authority that application is not filed by Authorised person is not correct and we proceed on the assumption that Appellant were authorised representative of the homebuyers in the present case. 6. The Resolution Professional in the CIRP proceedings, appointed two valuers under Section 35 of the CIRP Regulations and the two valuers have submitted their valuation reports. There being difference of more than 10% in the valuation of two valuers, a third valuer was appointed. After completion of the valuation exercise, resolution plan was placed before the CoC for consideration. The CoC approved the Resolution Plan and application has already been filed by the Resolution Professional for approval of the plan before the Adjudicating Authority.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
