TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, on the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive. In that view of the matter, the appeals deserve to be allowed only on this ground. It is held that the claim of the respondent, which is not part of the Resolution Plan, does not survive. The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of admission of the appeals along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed. - Civil Appeal Nos. 447-448/2013 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Appellant(s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the IBC ). The application of the Standard Chartered Bank under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as the CIRP ) came to be admitted by the learned Adjudicating Authority on 15th December, 2017. After the procedure, as required under the various provisions of the IBC was completed, an application under Section 30 (6) of the IBC came to be filed by the Resolution Professional for the grant of approval of the Resolution Plan of the successful Resolution Applicant. Vide order dated 24th July, 2019 read with order dated 04 th September, 2019, the application of the Resolution Prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the respondent no. 2/Revenue, on the contrary submits that no notice was issued to the Authority at Mangalore. She further submits that there was certain confusion as to whether the operational debt as defined under Section 5(21) of the IBC would cover the claim of the respondent no. 2/Revenue. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of said confusion, there is a possibility that the office of the respondent no.2 might not have lodged the claim with respect to the present proceedings. We find that the present appeals are squarely covered by the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra (supra). It will be relevant to refer to Paragraph 102 of the said judgment which reads as under: 102. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
