The appeal was filed against the order dated 18th July 2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-V, which allowed I.A. No. 2724 of 2022 filed by the Resolution Professional for approval of the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant was approved. The Appellant, who had also submitted a Resolution Plan, filed this appeal because their plan was not considered due to their failure to submit the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs as per RFRP.
Rakesh Ranjan, the Appellant, filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a Resolution Plan submitted by a Successful Resolution Applicant. The Appellant's own Resolution Plan was not considered because he failed to submit a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs as required by the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP). The Appellant argued that the Bank Guarantee requirement was contrary to Regulation 36B of the CIRP Regulations. The Respondents argued that the RFRP specifically required the Bank Guarantee and the Appellant never challenged this condition. The Resolution Professional stated that the Appellant had even written to Canara Bank to submit the Bank Guarantee but only raised the issue after his plan
…Sign in to view the parties.
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai…
The Appellant wrote a letter to Canara Bank…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The appeal was filed against the order dated 18th July 2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-V, which allowed I.A. No. 2724 of 2022 filed by the Resolution Professional for approval of the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant was approved. The Appellant, who had also submitted a Resolution Plan, filed this appeal because their plan was not considered due to their failure to submit the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs as per RFRP.
Rakesh Ranjan, the Appellant, filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a Resolution Plan submitted by a Successful Resolution Applicant. The Appellant's own Resolution Plan was not considered because he failed to submit a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs as required by the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP). The Appellant argued that the Bank Guarantee requirement was contrary to Regulation 36B of the CIRP Regulations. The Respondents argued that the RFRP specifically required the Bank Guarantee and the Appellant never challenged this condition. The Resolution Professional stated that the Appellant had even written to Canara Bank to submit the Bank Guarantee but only raised the issue after his plan
…The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai…
The Appellant wrote a letter to Canara Bank…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.