ONE PAGE 38 – In the matter of M/s Neesa Leisure Ltd.

ONE PAGE 38 – In the matter of M/s Neesa Leisure Ltd.
Appeal filed against Rplan dismissed being premature, with a liberty to challenge the same on merits, after NCLT decides on the Rplan
Court:  NCLT Ahm & NCLAT PB AT# 390/2021 Dt 02.07.2021

1. Background:

a. Appeal is filed by the Fixed Deposit Holders (4.8% of COC) challenging the rejection of their IA filed at NCLT, against the IA filed by the RP for the approval for Rplan.

b. According to the Appellants the Rplan placed by the RP before COC was not in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act 2013 r/w rules and that the debt payable to Fixed deposit holders cannot be reduced or varied wile deciding on the Rplan. But the COC approved the Rplan and RP filed the IA for approval by AA before NCLT, without taking into consideration such right of the Fixed Deposit Holders.

c. RP submitted that the SC in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd.” in CA No. 3395 of 2020 decided on 24.03.21 held that the Fixed Deposit Holders are bound by the decision of CoC in terms of commercial decision taken on Rplan.

d. The impugned IA was rejected and dismissed by the NCLT referring to the judgment in Shashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.” observed in para 7 of the impugned order as under: –

“In the above backdrop, when the Rplan has already been received & the same is approved by the CoC based on its commercial wisdom, we find no reason to interfere with the Rplan as all the secured creditors, unsecured creditors & other stakeholders which includes FD holders etc, have lodged their claim and they are considered by the CoC at the time of approval of the Resolution Plan as per Section 53 of IBC.”

2. NCLAT Evaluation & Judgment:

NCLAT observed that NCLT has in advance taken a decision and the matter came up before it. It would have been more appropriate for NCLT to decide on the impugned IA along with decision on Rplan. As and when NCLT decides whether to accept or reject the Rplan, the Appellant would be at liberty to challenge the same on its merits. NCLAT found no reason to entertain the Appeal and admission of appeal is declined.

PS: Eager to see the NCLT’s decision on the Rplan and rights of Fixed Deposit Holders.

MS Mano Ranjani

Disclaimer: The Opinions expressed in this article are that of the author(s). The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of IBC Laws ( The entire contents of this document have been prepared on the basis of the information existing at the time of the preparation. The author(s) and IBC Laws ( do not take responsibility of the same. Postings on this blog are for informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to constitute legal or investment advice. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog between contributors and other persons shall not create any attorney-client relationship.