The appeals were filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against orders dated 12/06/2019 and 09/07/2019 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed MA/120/2019, filed by the Appellant, seeking a forensic audit of the Corporate Debtor's books and challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan. MA/179/2019, challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan, was also dismissed. The appellant, a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, argued that the Resolution Professional did not share documents, violating natural justice principles, and that the Committee of Creditors' decision was invalid. The appellant also questioned the quantity of material and sought a forensic audit of transactions.
Dr. Ravi Shankar Vedam, a 38% shareholder of Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Limited, filed appeals against the Adjudicating Authority's orders dismissing his applications for a forensic audit and challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan. The CIRP was initiated based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 16/04/2016. The appellant contended that the MoU was not genuine, the CIRP was initiated fraudulently, and the Resolution Professional undervalued the company. The appellant also argued that the SRA is a Co-Subsidiary of the 1st Respondent. The Resolution Professional stated that the appellant never raised these issues during the CIRP and that the Committee of Creditors rejected the proposal for a forensic audit. The Adjudicating Authority found
…Sign in to view the parties.
Date of the Memorandum…
Corporate Debtor was in…
The appeals were filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against orders dated 12/06/2019 and 09/07/2019 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed MA/120/2019, filed by the Appellant, seeking a forensic audit of the Corporate Debtor's books and challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan. MA/179/2019, challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan, was also dismissed. The appellant, a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, argued that the Resolution Professional did not share documents, violating natural justice principles, and that the Committee of Creditors' decision was invalid. The appellant also questioned the quantity of material and sought a forensic audit of transactions.
Dr. Ravi Shankar Vedam, a 38% shareholder of Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Limited, filed appeals against the Adjudicating Authority's orders dismissing his applications for a forensic audit and challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan. The CIRP was initiated based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 16/04/2016. The appellant contended that the MoU was not genuine, the CIRP was initiated fraudulently, and the Resolution Professional undervalued the company. The appellant also argued that the SRA is a Co-Subsidiary of the 1st Respondent. The Resolution Professional stated that the appellant never raised these issues during the CIRP and that the Committee of Creditors rejected the proposal for a forensic audit. The Adjudicating Authority found
…Date of the Memorandum…
Corporate Debtor was in…