Bank Of India And Anr. vs Vijendra Kumar Jain And Ors.

Nature of Debt/Claim,Amount (Rs.)

Principal Dues,"14,07,20,213/-

Normal Interest Dues,"29,03,92,505/-

Further Interest Dues,"96,89,68,025/-

Liquidated Damages Dues,"55,04,44,616/-

Total Dues,"195,05,25,359/-

d. The Applicant attended all the CoC meetings. One Mr. Vivek Sinha, Chief Manager of the Applicant participated in the 6th CoC meeting held on",

22/01/2020 and voted in favour of the Resolution Plan.,

e. The Resolution Plan has passed muster of the CoC with 93.06% of voting share, wherein the Applicant having 6.57% voting share also voted in",

favour of the Resolution Plan and the voting on the Resolution Plan ended on 07/02/2020.,

f. After 25 days of approval of the Resolution Plan by CoC, the Applicant requested RP to conduct another CoC meeting which is totally",

unwarranted.,

g. After lapse of five months from the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC the Applicant filed this Application. If the Applicant was aggrieved,

with the decision of RP in revising the voting share of CoC members, which happened on 16/09/2019, it should have approached the Tribunal at that",

time and not after the approval of the Resolution Plan and that too after voting in favour of Plan.,

h. It is to be noted that the CoC was initially constituted on 03.07.2019 and the constitution of CoC was revised after the admission of the revised,

claims by the Financial Creditors as early as on 16/09/2019 when the 3rd CoC meeting was held, wherein the composition of CoC was discussed.",

i. Admittedly, this Application was filed on 28/08/2020. Now, after a period of 11 months from the reconstitution of CoC, this Applicant is making a",

claim that constitution of CoC itself is wrong. It is to be noted that the CIR Process is at the fag end wherein this Adjudicating Authority has to,

consider the approval of Resolution Plan under Section 30 of the I&B Code.,

j. RP has clarified that the liquidated damages were awarded to the financial creditors, who were the first charge holders, in terms of Loan",

Agreement. We have also referred to the loan agreement which provides for liquidated damages. However, we are not going into the issue of",

whether the action of the RP in including the liquidated damages in the claim is in order or not. Even if the liquidated damages are excluded from the,

claims admitted its effect on the voting percentage of members of CoC would be negligible.,

k. We feel that the Applicant cannot raise the issue of wrong constitution of CoC at the fag end of CIRP and that too after participating in all the CoC,

meetings and on top of that after voting in favour of the Resolution Plan in the CoC meeting.,

l. It is rather strange and incomprehensible that the Applicant after voting in favour of the Resolution Plan turns around and seeks for dismissal of the,

Resolution Plan. The Applicant is thus estopped from questioning the resolution plan.,

Accordingly, this Application is dismissed. No costs.",

ORDER,

The matter is taken up on VC. Counsel for the Applicant is present. No representation for the Respondent. Orders pronounced vide separate orders.,

The Application is rejected.,