1. Ms. Sripriya Kumar, The Resolution Professional, No. 224A (New 346/1), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600086 ....Respondent No. 1 2. Kotak Mahindra No. 27 BKC, GBlock, C27, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051. ...Respondent No. 2 3. Monitoring Commmittee Project Arun Auroville Represented by Ms. Sripriya Kumar, Having Office at No. 224A (New 346/1), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600086. ...Respondent No. 3 Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 431/2022 Page 1 of 41 4. Consortium of Resolution Applicants, (Mr. Kamal Pasha and Mr. Sayed Fahad) Having Office at N.324, Golden Point, 1ST Floor, Off Queens Road, Baghavan Mahaveer Hospital Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru 560 052. ...Respondent No. 4 Present : For Appellant : Mr. B.S.V. Prakash Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ranjana Jain, Advocate, For R2 Mr. Srinandan K, Advocate, For R4 Mr. N.P. Vijaykumar, Advocate, For R1, R3 JUDGMENT (Physical Mode) [Per: Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)] 1. Challenge in this Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 431/2022 is to the Impugned Order dated 04/11/2022 passed in IA No. 252/2021 in C.P.(IB) 305/BB/2019, whereby and whereunder the 'Adjudicating Authority' has allowed the Application filed by the 'Resolution Professional' under Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), seeking approval of the 'Resolution Plan' submitted by the Consortium of Mr. S.M. Kamal Pasha and Mr. Syed Fahad, (hereinafter referred to as the 'SRA'). While allowing the Application for approval of the Plan, the 'Adjudicating Authority' has dismissed the objections filed by the Appellant herein / 'Promotor of the Corporate Debtor' to the Application preferred by the Resolution Professional. Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 431/2022 Page 2 of 41 2. Succinctly put, the main issues raised by the Appellant / Promotor of the Corporate Debtor is that the 'Adjudicating Authority' had wrongly directed for project wise CIRP; that the CoC was improperly constituted and that the amount in the Resolution Plan entitled for Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Kotak Bank') is much more than the actual Claim admitted by the Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as 'the RP'). It is the further case of the Appellant that the amount claimed was Rs. 36,27,00,000/ whereas the amount provided for under the Plan was Rs. 46,00,00,000/, which is inclusive of 'interest', which ought not to have been charged after the quantum of the Claim amount HAD already crystalized. The other issue raised by the Appellant is that the Resolution Plan value is less than the Liquidation value and also that the 'SRA Consortium' is ineligible under Section 29A of the Code as they have been disqualified on account of nonfiling of the Financial Statements of their Companies. ISSUE: PROJECT WISE CIRP & WRONG CONSTITUTION OF COC 3. At the outset, the first issue raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the IRP had wrongly constituted the CoC to consist of only the Financial Creditors pertaining to the project 'Arun Auroville'. It is submitted that in response to the Public Notice dated 04/02/2020, the IRP received several claims in respect of other projects, 'Arun Kaustubh', also known as 'Arun Parkwood' and that the IRP was required to verify every claim against the Corporate Debtor as of the date of the Insolvency Commencement date i.e. 31/01/2020 and include Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 431/2022 Page 3 of 41 all the Creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The first Meeting was conducted on 02/03/2020 with only the Fina