Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + SC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 449 - SC - Insolvency and BankruptcyWhether the finding that the financial creditor was discriminated against, leading the NCLAT to modify the adjudicating authority’s directions, and consequently imposing greater financial burdens on the resolution applicant, is justified? HELD THAT:- Section 30 lays out the duties of the resolution professional and the various steps that she or he has to take, as well as the considerations that are to weigh, in examining a resolution plan. The principle of fairness engrafted in the provision is that the plan should make a provision for repayment of debts of operational creditors having regard to the value, which shall not be less than what is prescribed by the Board (i.e. the Insolvency Board), repayable in the event of liquidation, spelt out in Section 53. Section 30(3) requires the resolution professional to present the resolution plan to the committee of creditors and Section 30(4) stipulates that approval shall be by a vote not less than 75% of the voting share of the financial creditors. Given that the resolution process began well before the amended regulation came into force (in fact, January, 2017) and the resolution plan was prepared and approved before that event, the wide observations of the NCLAT, requiring the appellant to match the payout (offered to other financial creditors) to Hero, was not justified. The court notices that the liquidation value of the corporate debtor was ascertained at 36 ₹ crores. Against the said amount, the appellant offered ₹54 crores. The plan was approved and, except the objections of the dissenting creditor (i.e Hero), the plan has attained finality. The order of the NCLT is hereby restored - Appeal allowed.
|