Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1431 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - pivotal stand of the Appellant is that if the Appellant’s interest is brushed aside in the Resolution Plan, it will affect the interests of Operational Creditors - Section 60(5) of IBC - HELD THAT:- Although on behalf of the Appellant a plea is raised that the Appellant was discriminated as an Operational creditor and that the Equality Concept was not adhered to by the Adjudicating Authority while approving the Resolution Plan (especially in the teeth of the Resolution Plan 100% payment to the Operational Creditors with claim upto Rs. 3 Lakhs were admitted), this Tribunal, is of the considered opinion that the Operational Creditors were paid as per Section 30(2) (b) of the I&B Code, 2016, and coupled with Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations the Operational Creditors are entitled to receive only such money that are payable to them as per Section 53 of Code. In reality, there is no embargo for the classification of Operational creditor(s) into separate/different classes for deciding the way in which the money is to be distributed to them by the Committee of Creditors because of the fact, undoubtedly, they do have the subjective final discretion of Collective Commercial Wisdom in relation to (1) The amount to be paid (2) The quantum of money to be paid, to a certain category or the incidental category of creditors, of course, nicely balancing the interests of the Stakeholders and the Operational Creditors, as the case may be. Suffice it for this Tribunal to pertinently make a significant mention that it cannot be lost sight of that the Appellant’s claim is not relatable to the supply of goods or services so as to keep the Corporate Debtor as a Going Concern. It is to be remembered that the Appellant had commenced Arbitration proceedings in regard to its claim emanating from the Gas Sale Agreement. In fact, the Appellant’s claim pertains to supposed obligation to pay for goods, even where, these were not made use of as take or pay obligation. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of Law - Resultantly the instant Appeal sans merits - Appeal dismissed.
|