# In the matter of IMR Metallurgical Resources AG Vs. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. and Ors. CA(AT)(Ins)No. 272 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-06-08. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00234. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 30th January 2020, passed by the National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 8 Jun 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00234
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/imr-metallurgical-resources-ag-vs-ferro-alloys-corporation-ltd-and-ors-ca-166d73f2

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 30th January 2020, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Cuttack Bench, which dismissed an application by the appellant, IMR Metallurgical Resources AG, seeking intervention and reconsideration of its Resolution Plan. The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority failed to exercise its power under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by not properly evaluating the resolution plans, particularly regarding irregularities committed by the Resolution Professional (RP) and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in applying the evaluation matrix.

## Facts

IMR Metallurgical Resources AG (IMR) filed an appeal against the impugned judgment dated January 30, 2020, passed by the NCLT Cuttack Bench. The NCLT had dismissed IMR's application seeking intervention and directions for reconsideration of its Resolution Plan. IMR contended that the Adjudicating Authority failed to exercise its power under Section 31 of the IBC, which mandates the application of mind before approving or rejecting a Resolution Plan. IMR argued that the CoC did not accept its Resolution Plan, communicated via email on November 13, 2019. The RP then filed an application under Section 31 of the IBC for approval of the Resolution Plan. IMR immediately applied Rule 11 of the NCLT Rule read with Section 60(5) of the IBC, seeking intervention and directions

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority failed to exercise its power under Section 31 of the IBC by not …

**Ratio:** The commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount, and the Adjudicating Authority's power to

…

**Reasoning:** The court relied on precedents like 'K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank' and

…

**Interpretation:** Section 31 of the IBC mandates the Adjudicating Authority to approve a

…

**Application:** The court found that the Adjudicating Authority had properly applied its mind

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Bansi Lal…; V. P. S…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** IMR Metallurgical…
- **Respondents:** Ferro Alloys…

## Timeline

- **2020-01-30 — Impugned Judgm…**: Date of the impugned judgment passed by NCLT…
- **2019-11-13 — Email to Ap…**: Date of email communication to the Appellant regarding the CoC's decision on the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 31 — Approval of resolution plan](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-31)

---

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/imr-metallurgical-resources-ag-vs-ferro-alloys-corporation-ltd-and-ors-ca-166d73f2