Adani’s bid for Ruchi Soya, which is facing insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, appears to have run into rough weather as Yoga guru Ramdev promoted Patanjali Ayurved has written to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) raising concerns about Adani Wilmar’s eligibility to bid for it.
“We have written letters on June 10th and 11th regarding Ruchi Soya to CoC and we have not received any reply so far,” Patanjali spokesperson SK Tijawarala told IANS.
It is learnt that in the letter Patanjali Ayurved had raised issues under section 29 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Meanwhile in a report by The Business Standard, the CoC, comprising the lenders, recently met and discussed the bids made by both companies and their respective resolution plans for the insolvent entity.
According to Section 29A, the bidders for an insolvent company need to meet specified eligibility criteria. It means a bidder cannot be allowed to offer a resolution plan under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) if the promoter is connected to another stressed-loan corporate.
Ruchi Soya was admitted to the CIRP in December 2017.
Ruchi Soya has brands like Nutrela, Mahakosh, Sunrich, Ruchi Star and Ruchi Gold.
Financial creditors have filed claims worth around Rs 104 billion, while operational creditors have filed claims worth Rs 360 million, the newspaper reported.
“Pranav Adani, MD of Adani Wilmar and a relative of Adani group chairperson Gautam Adani, is married to Namrata, daughter of Vikram Kothari, the erstwhile promoter of Rotomac group who was arrested by the CBI in February, after Bank of Baroda complained of a fraud by his company,” Business Standard reported.
“According to recent IBC ordinance, approved by the President on June 6, the definition of “connected person” has broadened to include “related party” and “relatives” like members of the family, husband, wife, father, mother and other familial relations, including in-laws,” the report said.
The report said, since the resolution plans for both bidders were submitted prior to the recent amendment by ordinance to the IBC, it is unclear whether the broadened criteria under Section 29A will apply to the present case.
