9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Order dated 11th October 2019 passed in M.A. No.927 of 2019 in M.A. No.651 of 2019 in connection with CP/540/IB/2018 by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai whereby the Adjudicating Authority has issued direction for paper publications in the newspaper as prescribed in the Order, i.e. Hindu (English newspaper) in All India Edition and vernacular Dinamalar in Tamilnadu Edition. The Parties are represented by their original status in the main petition for the sake of convenience. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The Appellant contends that their father Late Mr S. Mukanchand Bothra being a Financial Creditor filed a claim to the tune of Rs. 15 Crores which was challenged before the Adjudicating Authority, Chennai. During the pendency of this petition, on 17th April 2019, Mr Mukanchand Bothra expired, and the Appellants were impleaded as their legal heirs vide Order passed in M.A. No.441/2019. 3. After that a Resolution Plan was approved by NCLT, Chennai Bench vide Order dated 27th August 2019 in M.A. No.651 of 2019 a sum of Rs. 4,12,95,002/- was allotted to the share of late Mukanchand Bothra, out of his claim Rs. 15 Crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her has attained sainthood. 8. It is further contended by the Resolution Professional that publication was to be made once in Tamil daily, Dinamalar in Tamil Nadu and another in English Edition of Hindu Newspaper in All India edition. The Appellants were directed to deposit the cost of publication on the same day. The Appellants refused to pay the publication cost and sent an email dated on 27.09.2019 stating that the matter was mentioned before the Adjudicating Authority and direction was given to the second Respondent to make a publication on behalf of the second Respondent. The alleged order of the Adjudicating Authority was never submitted by the second Appellant. 9. It is further contended that the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 11th September 2019 cannot be treated modification, review or recall of the earlier Order. 10. It is further contended that the Order 27th August 2019 was never closed. Therefore it cannot be said that earlier Order has been modified. 11. Question of law that arises for our consideration is as under: 1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority has reviewed or recalled or modified its earlier Order without any authority? 2. Whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Unsecured Financial Creditor with 27.53% payout. The details of the same are as follows: Payout to Unsecured Financial Creditors Name Amount Admitted 90% Payout 27.53% Payout 4 You Tradex 4,47,11,012 4,02,39,911 1,23,08,942 Mr Gagan Bothra 2,33,66,000 2,10,29,400 64,32,660 Viva Entertainment 88,80,603 79,92,543 24,44,830 Switzer Instrument Pvt. Ltd. 69,68,767 62,71,890 19,18,502 Mr KR Jaganathan 28,22,000 25,39,800 7,76,897 Mr. Mukanchnd Bothra 15,00,00,000 4,12,95,002 Mr J. Muralidharane 4,68,46,027 - 1,28,96,712 Total 28,35,94,409 7,80,73,544 7,80,73,544" 18. Thus, it is clear that out of the claim of Rs. 15 Crores submitted by Mukanchand Bothra, only claim of Rs. 4,12,95,002/- was allowed to his share. It is undisputed facts after the death of Mukhanchand Bothra his legal heirs, i.e. Appellants had been substituted in place of Late Mukhanchand Bothra. As per approved Resolution Plan Rs. 4,12,95,002/- comes to the shares of Late Mukhanchand Bothra. Therefore, all the appellants are entitled to one-third share, from the amount which was allotted in favour of Late Mukhanchand Bothra. This resolution plan has become final, and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, the Appeal deserves to be allowed. CA No. 844 of 2019 This Appeal emanates from the Order dated 02nd July, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai in M.A. No. 518 of 2018 in CP/540/IB/2018, whereby the Adjudicating Authority has directed the applicants to treat the applicants at par with other unsecured financial creditors and make the appropriate provisions for payment, to which they are entitled, in consultation with the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Applicant, and file the supplementary affidavit to that effect before the Learned Adjudicating Authority. In compliance of the above Order, the Adjudicating Authority has directed the Resolution Professional to withdraw the Resolution Plan and constitute the CoC afresh to get the Resolution Plan approved with suitable modifications, as may be required. 2. It is pertinent to mention that in compliance of Order dated 2nd July 2019 resolution plan was amended and revised Resolution Plan has been the approved by the CoC after that by the Adjudicating Authority. The approved Resolution Plan dated 27th August 2019 is not under challenge. Therefore this Appeal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
