Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 614 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCIRP - Fairness of Resolution plan - appellant being Association of the ‘Homebuyers’ - plan challenged on various issued including, the ‘Resolution Plan’ amount being lower than the ‘Liquidation Value’, ‘exorbitant interest charges’ by the ‘Financial Creditors’ in their claims, denial of claims of the ‘Appellant’ etc. - HELD THAT:- The contention of the ‘Appellant’ with regards to equitable treatment with the financial creditor and not being treated at par with them does not seems to hold ground as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had established in case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors [2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT]. Hence the challenge to the ‘impugned order’ on ground that percentage recovery available to members of the association is lower than ‘Financial Creditor’ is not palatable. Therefore, this ‘Appellate Tribunal’ do not find any error in the ‘impugned order’ on this ground. Whether the amount under the ‘Resolution Plan’ can be less than the ‘Liquidation Value’ ? - HELD THAT:- The Resolution professional in its submissions has said that the liquidation value was strictly according to the regulations of the I & B Code, 2016 and were valued by two independent registered valuers. It has also been said that the ‘Resolution Plan’ amount was approved by ‘Committee of Creditors’ including, majority of the of the ‘Homebuyers’. All apartments forming part of pending projects of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ had been included and made part of the information memorandum, which was approved by the ‘Committee of Creditors’. - no fault can be found in view of judgment of the apex court in the case of Maharashtra Seamless Ltd Vs Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors. [2020 (1) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT] and therefore the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ rightly held that the resolution plan amount need not match the Liquidation value. Whether the 4th Respondent who is ‘Successful Resolution Applicant’ is close associate of 3rd Respondent who is ‘Financial Creditor’ of the 1st Respondent (Corporate Debtor) and whether the 4th Respondent as such can be barred by I &B Code, 2016 for submission of the ‘Resolution Plan’.? - HELD THAT:- as the I & B Code, 2016 places no embargo upon a financial creditor from voting upon a ‘Resolution Plan’ which is fully funded by it or partly funded by the ‘Successful Resolution Applicant’. This ‘Appellate Tribunal’, does not find ‘any material irregularity’ or ‘patent illegality’, in the ‘impugned order’
|