Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 338 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCorporate insolvency proceedings - claim of operational debt - Held that:- Section 3(6) (a) would not be applicable since the applicant has not proved that he has a right to payment. We have noted above that the pending material of ₹6,94,22,164/- is stated by the applicant to be withheld and still lying idle at its works. There is no averment that under the terms of the agreement the ownership of the material of ₹6,94,22,164/- passed to the corporate debtor. Section 3(6) (b) would not be applicable since there is no averment that the breach of contract, if any gives rise to a right to a payment. Therefore, the applicant’s contention of claim of operational debt of ₹6,94,22,164/- cannot be accepted. The remaining part of the claim relates to material inventory cost (₹21,10,36,800/-); escalation cost (₹6,33,60,000); overstay cost (₹90,00,000); watch and ward (₹14,00,000) totalling to ₹28,47,96,800/-. These amounts appear to be in the nature of damages and would not be covered by the definition of claim. In result thereof, the application is rejected. Approval of resolution plan - whether the resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation? - Held that:- We have examined the compliance of the conditions provided for in Section 31 (1) of the Code above and in view of the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs and the provisions of Sections 31 (1) of the Code, we approve the resolution plan submitted by M/s Dolphin Energy Enterprises subject to discussion as above in the case of the corporate debtor and the same is directed to be binding on the corporate and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan.
|