Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency & Bankruptcy Insolvency & Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency & Bankruptcy - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 199 - AT - Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Approval of Resolution Plan - Resolution Plan can be challenged on the ground that it discriminates between the operational creditors who are similarly placed, and also discriminates between the operational creditors and the financial creditors in respect of payments under the approved resolution plan - Appellant can raise the issue of admission of reduced amount of his claim, at a much belated stage, after the approval of resolution plan, or not? - HELD THAT:- After the RP had finally informed the Appellant vide email dated 02.09.2020 that only an amount of Rs.1,13,63,918/- was admitted, the Appellant did not take any further action about either preferring an appeal before the Adjudicating Authority on the matter of admission of reduced claim, nor took up the matter with the RP, and it is therefore logical and safe to presume that he accepted the admission of his claim at Rs.1,13,63,918/- - Once the resolution plan has been approved vide the Impugned Order the issue of any claim could not be agitated or brought up at this late stage.
The Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaypee Kingston Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. [[2021 (3) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT]] is followed, where it was held that once the Appellant did not challenge the admission of a reduced amount against the submitted claim, the same cannot be challenged after approval of the resolution plan.
Allocation of payments to various classes of creditors - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the resolution plan proposed payments to the operational creditors including Appellant as ‘NIL’, which was in accordance with the liquidation value of the corporate debtor. Thus the payments to operational creditors in the approved resolution plan is in consonance with Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC, and hence, it has been correctly approved by the CoC by the Adjudicating Authority and does not require any interference.
Discrimination in payments inter se between the financial creditors and operational creditors - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited & Anr. [[2021 (8) TMI 553 - SUPREME COURT]], wherein it is held that the Section 30(2)(b) is to be looked into with regard to the payments to operational creditors - the judgement make it quite clear that the CoC has to adequately balance the interest of all the stakeholders including the operational creditors and the NCLT/NCLAT have to only see whether the resolution plan meets with the requirements of Section 30(2) and Section 31 of the Code and there is no residual jurisdiction to examine the business decision of the CoC - This has clearly been done in the present case by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority while approving the resolution plan. It is also noted that in the grounds stated by the Appellant in the appeal there is no pleading as to how the resolution plan goes against the requirement of Section 30(2) and Section 31 of the Code and hence there is no reason for the Adjudicating Authority to have interfered with the decision of the CoC in approving the resolution plan.
There are no reason why the resolution plan approved by the Impugned Order should be interfered with - appeal dismissed.