Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1368 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyRefusal to grant voting right to the applicant in terms of Section 5(28) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Resolution Professional (RP) - HELD THAT:- It is accepted by the applicant that its claim was filed only after the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Andhra Bank (supra). The claim has been admitted. However, voting rights were not given by the RP on the ground that the debt has not crystallised and as such the voting rights cannot be determined. Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Andhra Bank [2018 (7) TMI 1896 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI ] has held that admittedly, the corporate debtor has counter indemnity obligation in respect of guarantee given by it to Andhra Bank and held that the Andhra Bank comes within the definition of ‘financial creditor’ as defined under Sections 5(7) r/w (8) of the Code. The present position of the resolution process is therefore, akin to the position of the resolution process on the date when the Hon’ble NCLAT passed order dated 13.07.2018. The claim of the present applicant that it comes within the definition of ‘financial creditor’ under Section 5(7) of the Code is based upon the decision dated 13.07.2018 of the Hon’ble NCLAT. Extension of CIRP Period - The directions of Hon’ble NCLAT were that only if the resolution plan is not in accordance with Section 30(2) then a valid objection can be raised by Andhra Bank who has been added as a member of CoC otherwise the CoC will approve it having already found it to be viable and workable. However, SBI did not approve the original resolution plan on the ground that the offer by the resolution applicant in the original resolution plan is much lower than the liquidation value of the corporate debtor - It is considered reasonable to accept the contention of the resolution applicant that the CoC be directed to consider the resolution plan of the resolution applicant. As recorded in order dated 30.08.2019, SBI has conveyed its no objection for holding a fresh meeting to consider revised resolution plan by the resolution applicant. CIRP process is stayed by ‘a court of law or the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
|