This appeal challenges an order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which rejected a Resolution Plan. The rejected plan was submitted by the Appellant/Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), Mr. Sandeep Lucky, and had been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 100% voting share. The NCLT's order also removed the existing Resolution Professional (RP) and directed a re-run of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), mandating its completion within 120 days, failing which the Corporate Debtor would be deemed liquidated. A related appeal by Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, Erstwhile RP, sought to set aside adverse remarks made against him in the impugned NCLT order.
The NCLT Mumbai Bench rejected a Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Sandeep Lucky, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
The Resolution Plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 100% voting share.
The NCLT order removed the Resolution Professional and directed a re-run of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) within 120 days, failing which the Corporate Debtor would be liquidated.
The Resolution Plan value was significantly less than the liquidation value, resulting in a 'huge reduction of haircut of 90%' for financial creditors.
The erstwhile RP failed to show due diligence and filed avoidance applications (under Sections 43 and 66 of IBC) only after the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC.
…Sign in to view the parties.
As per Regulation 35A(1) of CIRP Regulations,…
As per Regulation 35A(2) of CIRP Regulations,…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
This appeal challenges an order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which rejected a Resolution Plan. The rejected plan was submitted by the Appellant/Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), Mr. Sandeep Lucky, and had been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 100% voting share. The NCLT's order also removed the existing Resolution Professional (RP) and directed a re-run of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), mandating its completion within 120 days, failing which the Corporate Debtor would be deemed liquidated. A related appeal by Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, Erstwhile RP, sought to set aside adverse remarks made against him in the impugned NCLT order.
The NCLT Mumbai Bench rejected a Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Sandeep Lucky, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
The Resolution Plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 100% voting share.
The NCLT order removed the Resolution Professional and directed a re-run of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) within 120 days, failing which the Corporate Debtor would be liquidated.
The Resolution Plan value was significantly less than the liquidation value, resulting in a 'huge reduction of haircut of 90%' for financial creditors.
The erstwhile RP failed to show due diligence and filed avoidance applications (under Sections 43 and 66 of IBC) only after the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC.
…As per Regulation 35A(1) of CIRP Regulations,…
As per Regulation 35A(2) of CIRP Regulations,…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.