very seriously that the assets of the Corporate Debtor are attached by the ED and that proceeding is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It appears to us that the resolution applicant was aware of this fact that assets of the Corporate Debtor are attached by the ED and despite that it has submitted the plan. The statement made in the plan stating that the successful resolution applicant will appear in the SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and would show that the attachment is illegal. Be that as it may, that controversy is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and we have nothing to say about it. Suffice to say that in spite of the fact that litigation relating to assets of the Corporate Debtor is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the resolution applicant has submitted the resolution plan of approval being fully aware of this fact. We do not see any reason per se to hold that plan is against provisions of law. We have to consider whether the plan could be implemented because the assets are under the attachment of ED. It is seen from the evidence on record that the resolution applicant is ready to make payment to the extent of Rs. 501.00 Crores that within a maximum period in between six months to sixty months and the COC in their commercial wisdom has approved this plan. If the resolution applicant fails to implement the plan then certainly prejudicially affected person will invoke provisions of Section 33(3) of IBC, 2016 which state that “where the resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority is contravened by concerned Corporate Debtor, any person other than the Corporate Debtor, whose interests are prejudicially affected by such contravention, may make an application to the Adjudicating Authority for a liquidation order as referred to in sub-clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (b) of sub-section (1). In short, the resolution applicant has to comply the agreed payment schedule to the various
