Bankey Bihari Goyal vs Durga Das Agrawal

“a. Allow the present Application and direct impleadment of the Applicant as a Respondent/Objector in I.A. No. 29 of 2024 in C.P.

(IB) No. 2503/ND/2019; b. Take on record the detailed objections to the Resolution Plan proposed in I.A. No. 29 of 2024 in CP (IB) No. 2503/ND/2019; c. Direct the Resolution Professional to furnish complete and unredacted copies of the Resolution Plan, Forensic Audit Report, Evaluation Matrix, and all related documents to the Applicant forthwith; d. Pass such other or further orders as this Tribunal may deem just, fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

“16. Interestingly, we notice that the Appellant had not volunteered information on his own that he was also one of the Resolution Applicants. This was vociferously contended by the SRA and asserted that the Appellant could not have claimed access to the resolution plans of other PRAs as it would tantamount to breach of the confidentiality and commercial sensitivity of the plans submitted by the other PRAs. On a pointed query made by this Bench, the Appellant admitted that it had also wanted to submit a plan but their request was rejected. A closer look at the minutes of the 53 rd CoC meeting shows that a password protected resolution plan was submitted belatedly by the Appellant which was not considered as they had failed to submit EOI within the prescribed timeline in Form G and also failed to submit earnest money. Thus, when the Appellant had themselves submitted password protected resolution plan without any protestation, they cannot now contend that this procedure suffered from irregularities. Furthermore, when the Appellant was callous, negligent and failed to adhere to the CIRP Regulations in the submission of their own resolution plan, it does not lie in their mouth to nit-pick on imaginary irregularities committed by the RP.

17.

At this juncture, we would like to add that we have no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Jain supra that the suspended management has a right to participate in the CoC Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1906 of 2024 meetings and entitled to documents including resolution plan since Regulation 35 of CIRP Regulations recognises the vital interest of the suspended management in a resolution plan. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been relied upon by the Appellant is however not applicable in the facts of the present case since here in light of the distinguishing fact that suspended management had also staked their claim as a Resolution Applicant. In the present case, when it is an admitted fact that the Appellant was also a competing Resolution Applicant, no copy of the resolution plan of other PRAs could have been shared in advance with the Appellant as it would have triggered conflict of interest. Even though the resolution plan of the Appellant had been rejected, since the Appellant was admittedly in the fray until 22.05.2024, it cannot be ruled out that an element of bias would arise while considering the resolution plan of another competing Resolution Applicant.”