Shailendra Ajmera Vs Committee of Creditors of Nirmal Lifestyle (Kalyan) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (NCLT Mumbai)
NCLT Mumbai rejected the application u/s. 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] seeking approval of resolution plan since the same didn’t meet all the criteria laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Code read with Regulations 36A and 39 of the CIRP Regulations.
Facts- This Application was filed on 22.10.2024 by the Applicant, who is the Resolution Professional of Nirmal Lifestyle (Kalyan) Private Limited (the Corporate Debtor), under Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) seeking approval of the Resolution Plan dated 30.03.2024 (as amended by Resolution Plan dated 31.08.2024 and by Addendum dated 09.09.2024) submitted by a consortium of Mr. Dharmesh Jain, Prakruti Nirman Development Private Limited (PNDPL), Right Choice Housing Private Limited (RCHPL) and Nirmal Events 2 Excellence Private Limited NEEPL), with Mr. Dharmesh Jain as the lead member (Nirmal Consortium/Successful Resolution Applicant) and approved by 89.2% of the voting share of the members of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the Corporate Debtor.
Conclusion- Regulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations specifies that the CoC shall not consider any resolution plan received from a person who does not appear in the final list of prospective resolution applicants or does not comply with the provisions of Section 30(2) of the Code. Thus, in the CIRP Regulations, there are certain boundaries prescribed both for the resolution professional and the CoC that need to be strictly adhered to. The CoC, in the guise of exercise of commercial wisdom, cannot ignore any express provisions of the CIRP Regulations.
