At its May 24 meeting, the Creditors Committee (CoC) postponed the vote on the Suraksha Group’s offer. He also decided to conduct a voting process on May 27 and 28 to decide whether the two candidates – the NBCC and Suraksha – should be given more time to submit their revised and final offers.
In a letter to Anuj Jain, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) at Jaypee Infratech Ltd (JIL), the NBCC said it responded to its letters about non-compliance issues related to its offer to dissenting financial creditors.
The NBCC had submitted its resolution plan on May 18 and later an addendum on May 22, but both documents were declared non-compliant by the IRP.
“We hereby submit that the NBCC has submitted a plan after considering all the factors and taking the best possible legal advice,” the NBCC said.
The Supreme Court judgment of March 24 which ordered the NBCC and Suraksha to tender only mentioned the establishment of a provision for the total liquidation value for dissenting financial creditors and made no provision for any commitment. of any kind, the public sector company said.
As a result, the NBCC said it included in the plan full liquidation value for dissenting financial creditors in various forms.
“We understand from the above letters (from the IRP) that some provisions such as Promoters Guarantee, Manoj Gaur Personal Guarantee and NTMs were not considered valid provisions,” said the NBCC.
The IRP also requested that a short term commitment be provided by the NBCC.
“While we consider our plan to be legally compliant based on our understanding, we appreciate that you should forward legally compliant plans to the CoC as per your understanding.
“Since the NBCC is fully committed to the resolution plan that will provide homes to approximately 20,000 long-awaited buyers, we are ready to consider your point of view and submit the necessary changes to our board of directors,” says the letter.
In the event that it is asked to submit a revised plan, the NBCC will do so based on the IRP’s observations and satisfaction for the benefit of all stakeholders, mainly buyers who should not suffer due to divergent legal interpretations.
JIL began insolvency proceedings in August 2017 after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) granted a claim from a consortium led by IDBI Bank.
In the first round of insolvency proceedings, the offer of Rs 7,350 crore from Lakshadweep, which is part of the Suraksha group, was rejected by the lenders.
The CdC had rejected the offers of Suraksha Realty and NBCC in the second round which took place in May-June 2019. The case reached the National Company Law Appeals Tribunal (NCLAT), then the Supreme Court. .
In November 2019, the Supreme Court ordered that JIL’s insolvency process be completed within 90 days and that revised offers should only be solicited by the NBCC and Suraksha Group.
In December 2019, the CdC approved the NBCC resolution plan with a favorable vote of 97.36% in the third round of the tender process.
Later in March 2020, the NBCC had obtained approval from NCLT to acquire JIL.
However, the order was challenged in NCLAT and later in the Supreme Court, which in March of this year ordered that new bids be invited only from NBCC and Suraksha. PTI MJH ANU ANU
Warning :- This story has not been edited by Outlook staff and is auto-generated from news agency feeds. Source: PTI