24.01.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.08.2022 passed by the NCLT, New Delhi, Court-3 on an IA filed by the Appellant being IA No.478 of 2024.
2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are:
2.1 There has been an MOU between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor on 26.10.2015 and 02.11.2015 with Tower S2A and Tower S2B. The Appellant claims to be FSI purchaser from the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was put into insolvency by order dated 10.03.2022. In the CIRP, Resolution Plans have been submitted. Appellant has filed IA No.6586 of 2023 seeking directions against the Resolution Professional to execute the external work, which was dismissed. Against which order the Appellant filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. Another IA No.478 of 2024 was filed by the Appellant praying for following reliefs:
“i. To allow the present application.
ii. To reject the resolution plan of the Respondent No.1.
iii Pass any other direction/order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the larger interest of Justice.”
2.2 The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Appellant and the Resolution Professional took the view that Resolution Plan grants 90 days’ time for making the payment of the balance sale consideration, which is an enabling provision for the Applicant and the other FSI buyers. The Adjudicating Authority has made the said observation in Para 7 (iv) and (v). The Adjudicating Authority took the view that CoC’s commercial wisdom cannot be interfered with and prayer of the Applicant to cancel the Resolution Plan was not acceded to.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that although 90 days’ time has been allowed to make balance payment but subsequent to 90 days what action shall be taken is not clear from the Resolution Plan. It is submitted that other obligations under the MOU have not been dealt with.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Resolution Plan itself provides opportunity to the Appellant to make balance payment so that obligation under the MOU can be discharged.
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that the Resolution Plan protects the interests of the Appellant by granting time to make payment. The question as to in event payment is not made in 90 days, need not be entered into and answered in this appeal, which is a question which may be answered and dealt with in accordance with law as per provisions of the MOU. We are of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order. Subject to observations as above, we dismiss this appeal.
