Proceed with Binani resolution process for now: SC
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the committee of creditors (CoC) of Binani Cement Ltd to proceed with its resolution process, subject to the final outcome of the case.
“All we want is that no final order should be passed till 2nd July, the next date of hearing in the case in the apex court,” said former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium, on behalf of Dalmia Cement.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing one of the bidders, UltraTech Cement, argued: “We have offered ₹1,000 crore more than Dalmia Cement. It has 90% haircut from SBI lenders and income tax department.”
The two-judge vacation bench was hearing an appeal brought by Dalmia Bharat Ltd-controlled Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd (RPPL) against a May 15 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowing the CoC to consider a revised offer for Binani Cement by UltraTech Cement.
The order also prohibited the resolution professional for Binani Cement from seeking an opinion from the resolution applicants and other parties on the questions of eligibility.
Simultaneously, RPPL has challenged a May 22 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunalthat refused to stay the corporate insolvency resolution process for Binani Cement.
RPPL has sought a stay on both the NCLAT orders.
Dalmia Bharat has offered to pay ₹6,932.46 crore for Binani Cement, whereas UltraTech has raised its bid to ₹7,960 crore and claimed that, in the interest of all stakeholders, its bid should be considered.
Seeking urgent listing of the matter and for it to be heard on a day-to-day basis, RPPL sought a stay on the impugned orders directing the resolution professional and CoC to consider the resolution plans as per the guidelines prescribed under the May 15 order.
The appeal holds that through the impugned orders of May 15 and May 22, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal erroneously laid down a procedure unknown to the statutory framework devised for the evaluation of a resolution plan by eliminating scrutiny regarding its legality and eligibility of a resolution applicant under Section 30(3) and 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The effect of the May 15 order is that while the legality and correctness of the rejection of a resolution plan submitted by the applicant is pending adjudication before the adjudicating authority, the CoC has been allowed to consider the revised offer of an unsuccessful resolution applicant (UltraTech), it was stated.