National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: In an appeal against the rejection of seeking various reliefs regarding valuation reports and appointment of a fresh valuer, a division bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J., and Mr. Barun Mitra, (Technical Member), upheld the rejection of the application for valuation queries post-resolution plan approval, on not finding error in Adjudicating Authority’s decision.
In the instant matter, the appellant filed an application seeking condonation for a 13-day delay in filing an appeal and the ground for the delay was attributed to renovation work in the counsel’s office, resulting in the misplacement of the file, and the unavailability of the Authorized Representative who was in Rajasthan for personal reasons, against an order dated 25-07-2023 by the NCLT. The impugned application sought to reject a valuation report and appoint a fresh valuer regarding the assets of a Group Housing Society known as IRIDIA. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, noting that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had already approved the Resolution on 06-10-2022, and observed that the application filed by a set of homebuyers was not submitted through an Authorized Representative.
The appellant argued that the application was authorized by the homebuyers, and since the earlier Authorized Representative had withdrawn, the application was maintainable. Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about the valuation, claiming it was at a higher side, which could adversely affect the homebuyers. On the other hand, the respondent relied on Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd. v. ACIL Ltd. (Resolution Professional), (2024) 2 SCC 122 and contended that the Adjudicating Authority’s rejection of the application was justified.
The NCLAT noted that the observation of the Adjudicating Authority that the application was not filed by authorised person is incorrect and assumed that the appellant is the authorized representative of the homebuyers in the present case. The NCLAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on the grounds provided.
It also noted that the Resolution Professional appointed two valuers under Section 35 of the CIRP Regulations, with a third valuer appointed due to significant valuation differences and the resolution plan was approved by the CoC. The NCLAT referred to Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd. (Supra) where the Supreme Court had dismissed the valuation queries post-resolution plan approval. The NCLAT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority’s rejection of the appellant’s application and dismissed the appeal.
[Committee of Creditors v. Anil Tayal, 2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 221, order dated 16-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Sumit Wadhwa, Ms. Saloni Chowdhry, Mr. Aysuh Samaddar, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Sachin Jain, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Kant, Mr. Krishan Singhal, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bani Brar, Mr. Rajat Sinha, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, 5 to 8
Mr. T. Srinivasa Murthy, Ms. Shanelle Umarwadia, Ms. Trushita Shrivastava, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and 4
