AJAY GUPTA versus PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 25-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 196
196
AJAY GUPTA
v.
PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA
(Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 25, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: s. 62 – Appellant
was one of the resolution applicants in the corporate insolvency
resolution process concerning the corporate debtor – Deliberation
took place between the appellant, the other applicant and the
Committee of Creditors (CoC) over the resolution plan submitted
and as a result of which the appellant and the other applicant were
asked to remove defects from the resolution plan so submitted –
Appellant proposed for modification/amendment of the resolution
plan but the same was declined by the resolution professional –
Aggrieved by it, the appellant approached the Adjudicatory
Authority, which allowed the appellant’s prayer of modification of
resolution plan but at the same time, to provide level playing field,
allowed the other resolution applicant also to make modification in
its resolution plan which was submitted to the CoC – Pursuant to
the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the CoC considered the
resolutions plans of appellant and the other resolution applicant
and approved the resolution plan of the other resolution applicant
– Appellant questioned the order of the Adjudicating Authority before
the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that since the resolution plan of
the appellant was known to everyone hence no opportunity should
have been given to the resolution applicant for modification –
Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal – On appeal, held: The
modification was permitted at the request of the appellant himself
hence Adjudicating Atuhority, so as to provide level playing field,
was justified for granting permission to other resolution applicant to
place its modification for consideration of CoC – Since the appellant
had chosen to disclose the terms of its resolution plan before the
Adjudicating Authority, there was no fault on the part of the resolution
professional or CoC or other resolution applicant – The view taken
by the Adjudicating Authority as also by the Appellate Tribunal
appeared to be reasonable and sound, calling for no interference.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
197
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1385
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.01.2022 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT)
(Insolvency) No.35 of 2022.
Nakul Dewan, Sidhartha Dave, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advs.,
Shikhar Khare, M/s Kings and Alliance LLP, Nilotpal Shyam, Gaurav
Srivastava, Sudhanshu Prakash, Mrs. Babita Jain, Ms. Aarushi Singh,
Aditya Singh, Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Shailija Das, Abhishek Kumar,
Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Pracheta Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
DINESH MAHESHWARI,  J.
Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant at sufficient
length and having perused the material placed on record, we do not feel
persuaded to entertain this appeal under Section 62 of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 20161 by one of the resolution applicants2 in the
corporate insolvency resolution process3 concerning the corporate debtor-
B.B. Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant seeks to question the judgment and order dated
13.01.2022 as passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi4 in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No.
35 of 2022 whereby, the Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in the
order dated 13.12.2021 passed in I.A. No. 367 of 2021 in CP No.(IB)349/
ALD/2018 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad5 by which, the Tribunal granted the prayer of the appellant to
amend his resolution plan dated 22.10.2021 but, at the same time, also
allowed the other resolution applicant to place any modification in their
resolution plan before the Committee of Creditors6.
1 Hereinafter also referred to as “the Code’.
2 A consortium led by the appellant (comprising of a private limited company and the
appellant himself) has been the resolution applicant.
3 ‘CIRP’, for short.
4 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the NCLAT’ or ‘the Appellate Tribunal’.
5 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the NCLT’ or ‘the Adjudicating Authority’.
6 ‘CoC’, for short.
AJAY GUPTA v. PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects
for the present purp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.