# In the matter of Ajay Agarwal Vs. Shantanu T. Ray & Ors. CA (AT) Insolvency) No. 406-2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-10-25. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00183. The case involves an appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 25 Oct 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00183
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ajay-agarwal-vs-shantanu-t-ray-ors-ca-68f0695f

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Chennai) on March 6, 2019, which rejected the appellant's application seeking direction to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to consider a 'One Time Settlement' (OTS) proposal. The Adjudicating Authority had found that the 'Committee of Creditors' (CoC) had already passed a resolution approving the Resolution Plan of Respondent No. 4 - M/s DD International Pvt. Ltd., and the Resolution Plan had been filed before the Bench for approval. The appellant, Ajay Agarwal, claimed to have given an OTS offer under Section 12-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), on February 28, 2019, while the Resolution Plan was approved on March 1, 2019.

## Facts

Ajay Agarwal, the appellant and promoter/director of the suspended board of AML Steel & Power Ltd., filed an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting his application for considering an OTS proposal. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the CoC had already approved the Resolution Plan of DD International Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 4). Agarwal claimed to have submitted an OTS offer on 28.02.2019, while the Resolution Plan was approved on 01.03.2019. The Resolution Professional stated that the CIRP started on 12.03.2018, and Resolution Plans were placed before the CoC on 02.01.2019. The Appellant's plan was disqualified under Section 29-A of IBC. On 21.02.2019, Resolution Plans were processed, including Respondent No. 4's. On 26.02.2019, Respondent

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Appellant's application for considering …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority is not obligated to consider an OTS proposal if the CoC has

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the CoC had already approved the Resolution Plan of Respondent

…

**Interpretation:** This interprets the powers and discretion of the Adjudicating Authority in

…

**Application:** The ratio applies to the facts because the CoC had already approved a

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Kanthi Na…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Ajay Ag…
- **Respondents:** AML Steel & Power…; Shantanu…

## Timeline

- **2018-03-12 — CIRP Star…**: Corporate Insolvency…
- **2019-01-02 — Resolution Plans…**: Resolution Plans received were placed before the…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ajay-agarwal-vs-shantanu-t-ray-ors-ca-68f0695f