# In the matter of Makalu Trading Ltd and Ors Vs. Rajiv Chakraborty, Resolution Professional for Uttam Value Steel Ltd and Ors. CA(AT)(Ins)No. 533 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-09-09. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00132. This Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 533 of 2020 arises out of an order dated 06.05.2020…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 9 Sept 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00132
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/makalu-trading-ltd-and-ors-vs-rajiv-chakraborty-resolution-professional-for-utta-9cfa7335

## Summary

### Background

This Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 533 of 2020 arises out of an order dated 06.05.2020 & 30.04.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench in CP (IB) 1830/MB/2018 & Miscellaneous Application No. 1751/2019. The Appellants filed the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging the impugned order. The Appellants sought a stay on the operation of the impugned orders, a stay on Carval/consortium of Carval/Nithia from alienating assets of the Corporate Debtor, and setting aside the NCLT's approval of Carval's Resolution Plan.

## Facts

Makalu Trading Ltd. and other appellants filed an appeal against the approval of a resolution plan for Uttam Value Steel Ltd. The appellants argued that the resolution plan was flawed because it lacked prior approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI), suppressed material facts, and violated insolvency regulations. Carval, the resolution applicant, allegedly submitted false information regarding the involvement of Dr. Johannes Sittard, who had resigned from Nithia Capital Resources. The appellants also contested the reduction in the bank guarantee amount from Rs. 250 Crores to Rs. 50 Crores. The Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) defended the resolution plan, stating that CCI approval was directory and that the CoC's decisions were

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the lack of prior approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for the …

**Ratio:** The proviso to Section 31(4) of the I&B Code, which relates to obtaining approval

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT relied on its earlier decision in Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abjijit

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 31(4) suggests that while CCI approval is

…

**Application:** In this case, the CCI approval was obtained before the Adjudicating Authority's

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Bansi Lal…; Anant Bijay…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Makalu Trading…
- **Respondents:** Uttam Value…; Rajiv Chakr…

## Timeline

- **2020-05-06 — Order Da…**: Order dated 06.05.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law…
- **2020-04-30 — Order Da…**: Order dated 30.04.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/makalu-trading-ltd-and-ors-vs-rajiv-chakraborty-resolution-professional-for-utta-9cfa7335