Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 416 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking rejection of sanctioned Resolution Plan - Delaying Tactics - rejection of Valuation Report - appointment of another valuer convening another CoC - inequitable provisions which discriminate the ‘employee Doctors’ and ‘Consultant Doctors’ - inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India - non-compliance with Section 30(2)(e) of I&B Code - discrepancies/anomalies observed in the ‘Valuation Report’ - concept of equality - HELD THAT:- As per Section 31 of the Code, if an ‘Adjudicating Authority’ is satisfied with the ‘Resolution Plan’ is approved by the ‘Committee of Creditors’ under Section 30(4) of the Code that it meets the requirements as contemplated in Section 30(2) of the Code, it shall by an order approve the ‘Resolution Plan’ which shall be binding on the ‘Corporate Debtor’ ‘Employees’ and ‘Members’ ‘Creditors’ and other ‘Stakeholders’ involved in the ‘Resolution Plan’ - It is well settled that it is not open to reopen the reasons for rejection of ‘Resolution Plan’ passed with 100% voting share s for adjudication. No wonder, approval for ‘Resolution Plan’ is to be judged with diligence and ‘satisfaction’ in regard to the ‘Approval of plan’ in writing with reasons to be recorded, of course, with due application of mind. Rejection of Valuation Report made by the Valuer Mr.R.K.Patel - HELD THAT:- Not resting with that, the ‘Resolution Professional’ had resorted to the agreed ‘International Valuation Standards’ and carried out the physical verification of the ‘Corporate Debtor’s fixed assets. Therefore, the question of appointing a ‘third Valuer’ on the purported ground of difference of 15.92% in the ‘Fair Value’ does not arise, in the considered opinion of this ‘Tribunal’. Equality Concept - HELD THAT:- One cannot ignore a vital fact that ‘Guarantee of Equality’ before law is a positive concept. The principle of equal pay for equal work has to be granted only if there is total and complete identity between two employees. It is to be remembered that the ‘burden of proving’ the ‘right and parity’ in an ‘employment’ is only on the individual claiming such right. Moreover, it cannot be lost sight of that in respect of the concerned employees ‘functions’ may be same but skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. Viewed in that perspective, in the instant case on hand, there is a clear difference and defined arena between the ‘Employee Doctors’ and the ‘Consultant Doctors’ of the ‘Corporate Debtor’. As such the contra plea taken on behalf of the Appellant(s) is not worthy of acceptance by this ‘Tribunal’. This ‘Tribunal’ taking note of the divergent contentions advanced on either side and also bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case, in a conspectus comes to a resultant conclusion that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ (National Company Law Tribunal, Cochin Bench) had in application had come to a correct conclusion on 22.02.2021 that the ‘Appellant’/‘Applicants’ claim for rejection of ‘Resolution Plan’ could not be entertained at the stage when ‘Resolution Professional’ had filed the ‘Resolution Plan’ before it, and also when the Plan was to be approved. Appeal dismissed.
|