NCLAT New Delhi: Ex-Director Cannot Claim Copy Of Resolution Plan When Entire CIRP Process Completed
Sachika Vij
8 Oct 2023 7:30 AM GMT
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Arun Baroka (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal filed in Diwakar Sharma vs. Anand Sonbhadra Resolution Professional of Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.. The Appeal was filed against the order of the National...
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Arun Baroka (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal filed in Diwakar Sharma vs. Anand Sonbhadra Resolution Professional of Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.. The Appeal was filed against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) New Delhi Bench dated 24.04.2023 rejecting an Interim Application (‘I.A.’) filed by the Appellant.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the Appellant as an Ex-Director cannot claim a copy of the Resolution Plan after its approval since the entire CIRP process is over with the Resolution Plan already approved in 2022.
Background Facts:
The I.A. was filed by the Appellant who claimed to be an Ex-Director of Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd (‘Corporate Debtor’) and had resigned in February 2014 which was uploaded on Registrar of Companies (‘ROC’) on 20.01.2016. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 26.11.2018 and the Resolution Plan was approved by NCLT New Delhi on 12.09.2022. The Appellant contended that he was also a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor.
The NCLT rejected the I.A. observing that the Appellant was not part of the Suspended Board of Directors.
The Resolution Professional argued that the Resolution Plan was approved in 2022 and no appeal was filed against it within the limitation. The Appellant indirectly has attacked the CIRP process and he wants a copy of the Resolution Plan when the entire process of CIRP has been completed.
NCLAT Verdict:
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and held that the Appellant as an Ex-Director cannot claim the copy of the Resolution Plan after its approval since the entire CIRP process is over where the Resolution Plan had been approved in 2022 itself and at this time, the Appellant’s prayer is uncalled for and unnecessary.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the Appellant was not part of the CIRP process as he himself resigned in 2014. Further, the observations of the case of Association of Aggrieved Workmen of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. & Ors. do not apply to the case as the Operational Creditors who had claimed access to the Resolution Plan after the completion of CIRP process were stakeholders in the process, unlike the Appellant in the present case.
Case Title: Diwakar Sharma vs. Anand Sonbhadra Resolution Professional of Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1182 of 2023
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Mrinal Harsh Vardhan and Mr. Yougender Singh, Advocates.
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Nipun Gautam, Mr. Mohak Sharma, Mr. Sikhar Tiwari, Mr. Sajal Jain, and Ms. Parveen Kaur Kapoor, Advocates.
