IFCI Ltd Vs Raju Palanikunnathil Kesavan (NCLAT Delhi)
These appeals were filed under Section 61 of the IBC challenging the NCLT Mumbai order dated 31.03.2023, by which the appellant’s application was rejected and the resolution plan was approved. The appellant had granted financial assistance of Rs. 50 crores to the Corporate Debtor, secured by mortgages over several properties, including Attipra land (a third-party asset) and Poonithura land (owned by the Corporate Debtor). Following default, a Section 7 application was admitted in 2019, and the Committee of Creditors (CoC)—primarily comprising homebuyers—approved a resolution plan with 74.19% voting. The appellant, though a major secured financial creditor, dissented and challenged the plan.
The resolution plan focused primarily on Attipra land (46 acres) and Poonithura land (0.60 acres). Attipra land, valued at around Rs. 50 crores per the appellant’s valuation, was a third-party asset on which the Corporate Debtor only had developmental rights through a joint venture. Although mortgaged to the appellant, the Resolution Professional (RP) assigned Nil value to it and extinguished the appellant’s security, citing that it was not owned by the Corporate Debtor, not part of the liquidation estate, and no construction or permits existed. The appellant argued that another similarly placed land—Poonithura land, also under a developmental arrangement—was valued at Rs. 26 crores, showing inconsistency. Limited construction was cited as the differentiating factor, although the appellant submitted conflicting statements existed between the RP and the Successful Resolution Applicant.
Comments are closed.