The legal implementation of the Resolution plan u/s 30(2)(e) is in no way impacted by the CIRP process followed in the First COC meeting and therefore cannot be considered as an objection us 30(2)(e) as it does not impact the implementation of the Resolution plan – Mr. Amit Sangal, Proprietor of Nitin Plastic Vs. Mr. Kairav Anil Trivedi, IRP/RP of Prince MFG Industries Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench
May 18, 2023
In this case, the Applicant submits that the IRP was never appointed and approved as RP by the CoC. The IRP has intentionally, willfully and deliberately filed a False and fabricated document of showing himself appointed as RP of the corporate debtor. The IRP concealed the result of e-voting and intentionally and wilfully mispresented and appointed him as RP under section 22 of the Code and filed false result of voting of first COC meeting before this Tribunal. The IRP has committed fraud by violating Section 28 of the Code by executing MOU with third party in collusion with suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor and handed-over the possession of factory along with plant & machinery, moulds, etc. to third party for contract manufacturing with retrospective effect from 05.10.2021 (on said date the IRP has not received the order as well as not made public announcement).
The Adjudicating Authority held that the Applicant/Operational Creditor (who has filed the application us 9 of IBC) has raised an objection related to matter much before issuance of FORM G. Therefore, these grounds cannot be considered as a ground for rejection of the Resolution Plan u/s 30(2)(e). The legal implementation of the Resolution plan u/s 30(2)(e) is in no way impacted by the CIRP process followed in the First COC meeting and therefore cannot be considered as an objection us 30(2)(e) as it does not impact the implementation of the Resolution plan.
