2022 (11) TMI 955 - AT - Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Validity of Resolution Plan approved u/s 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - It is the main argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Farmers were given 100% of the dues whereas the Appellant has given only 1% of the dues and therefore the Resolution Plan is discriminatory and is in violation of Section 30(2) of the Code.
HELD THAT:- It is seen from the record that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is a Sugar Industry and the Farmers are an integral part of the Sugar Industry. We find force in the contention of the Learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent that more than 4500 Farmers and their families are dependent on the ‘Corporate Debtor’ factory for their survival and the Plan would not be implementable without making payments to the Farmers as the dues have been pending for the last two years. The Minutes of the CoC Meeting shows that even the ‘Secured Financial Creditors’ accepted that 100% payment should be made to the Farmers who are the backbone of the Sugar Industry.
There is no evidence on record to substantiate that indeed the Applicants seeking to intervene had formed a group and given the representation to the RP at the appropriate time to consider them as one class. Their Claims were filed in an individual capacity and there is no Application on record seeking to treat all of them in one group, at that point of time and therefore their contention that they were not included in the Meeting of the CoC, is untenable. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no embargo for the classification of the ‘Operational Creditors’ into separate/different classes for deciding the way in which the money is to be distributed to them by the CoCs.
The Plan was approved by 100% Voting Share way back on 11.11.2019 almost three years ago and has also been implemented. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the ‘Operational Creditors’ were paid as per Section 30(2)(b) of the Code and read together 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 the Code. It is the final discretion of the ‘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, balancing the interests of the ‘Stakeholders’ and the ‘Operational Creditors’, as the case may be. The limited judicial review available to Adjudicating Authority lies within the four corners of Section 30(2) of the Code.