Case Law Details
Vishram Narayan Panchpor Vs Committee of Creditors (NCLAT Delhi)
Introduction: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench-I faced an appeal challenging its order in the case of Vishram Narayan Panchpor vs Committee of Creditors. The appellant, Mr. Mahesh Mathai, an ex-director of ‘M/s. Blue Frog Media Private Limited,’ sought approval for a Resolution Plan rejected under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The central issue revolved around Mr. Mathai’s eligibility and the interpretation of Section 29A.
Detailed Analysis: The case unfolded as the Adjudicating Authority dismissed Mr. Mathai’s Resolution Plan, citing ineligibility under Section 29A. The primary contention was that being a former promoter/director, he contributed to the company’s downfall. However, the appeal challenged this decision, asserting that Section 29A imposes disqualification only under specific clauses.
Section 29A delineates various disqualifications, including insolvency, wilful default, and criminal convictions. The critical aspect here is Section 29A(c), related to non-performing assets (NPAs), which the Adjudicating Authority incorrectly applied. The Resolution Plan’s approval by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) further complicated matters.
The NCLAT analysis emphasized that mere past association as a promoter or director does not per se disqualify an individual from submitting a Resolution Plan. It referred to the Supreme Court’s stance in the ‘Hari Babu Thota’ case, highlighting that Section 29A should be applied judiciously, considering specific disqualifications.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
