TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt that there is no provision in the Code which mandates that related party should be paid in parity with unrelated party. It is also relevant to notice that submission which is advanced by the Appellant is with regard to discrimination in payments to the workers and employees. No workers and employees have any grievance nor any workers and employees is dissatisfied with the payments made under the plan to them nor have they come in Appeal. Plan has been approved with 82.40% vote shares of the CoC - view of the Adjudicating Authority also confirmed that there is no non-compliance of Section 30(2) of the IBC. Thus, no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order which have been challenged in these Appeals - Both the Appeals are dismissed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) And [ Arun Baroka ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, Mr. D. N. Sharma, Ms. Priyata Chakraborty, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Avishek Guha, Mr. Soumya Dutta, Advocates with Mr. Pratim Bayal, RP in person for R-1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Plan. The Appellant promoter of the Corporate Debtor has filed the Appeal challenging the plan approval order. 2.2. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1534 of 2023 is filed by Kesoram Industries Limited who in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor has submitted a claim form on 16.05.2022 submitting a claim of Rs.518,28,91,356/-. The claim of the Appellant was admitted by earlier Resolution Professional but new Resolution Professional asked for certain documents from Appellant to prove his claim and ultimately vide e-mail dated 19.04.2023 rejected the claim of the Appellant and IA No. 957 of 2023 was filed by the Appellant- Kesoram Industries Limited challenging the email dated 19.04.2023 which was rejected on 18.10.2023. Against the order dated 18.10.2023 rejecting IA No. 957 of 2023, Kesoram Industries Limited has already filed an Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1467 of 2023. 3. We have heard Shri Sabyasachi Choudhury, Learned Counsel for the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1501 of 2023; Shri Mainak Bose, Learned Counsel for the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1534 of 2023, Shri S.N. Mookherjee, Learned Senior Counsel along with Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is submitted that the rejection of IA No. 1599/KB/2023 is on valid ground. Appellant is related party of the Corporate Debtor and is not entitled to receive any amount. It is further submitted that the approved Resolution Plan has already been implemented by the Successful Resolution Applicant and full payments envisaged thereunder have been made. The Appeal for all intents and purposes is infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the Appellant is related party of the Corporate Debtor and at the instance of its promoter has filed the Appeal to delay and hinder the implementation of the plan. Appellant sought to raise issues pertaining to payment of workers and employees whereas no worker or employees is aggrieved by distribution under the plan nor any Appeal has been filed by workers and employees. The amount earmarked in the plan for payment of workers and employees is sufficient to clear the entire dues of workers and employees. Further the employees of the Corporate Debtor have been continued, hence, there is no occasion for applicability of Section 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. It is submitted that insofar as Appeal filed by Kesoram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made in the resolution plan for payment to the related parties. According to the learned counsel, the need is, essentially, to ensure that the plan provides for payment to financial creditors (including dissenting financial creditors) entitled to vote. Thus, the plan in question cannot be said to be standing in contravention of any mandatory requirements. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the related party would submit that even when related party is to be treated as a separate class in terms of the principles laid down by this Court in Phoenix ARC (supra), so as to be excluded from CoC, there is no reason that they be treated as separate class when it comes to payment of dues under the resolution plan. It is submitted that failure to provide for discharge of debt of the related party is in violation of Section 30(2)(b), (e) and (f) of the Code. The submissions made on behalf of the related party and the observations of the Appellate Tribunal are difficult to be accepted. 200. The lengthy discussion of Appellate Tribunal in regard to the related party (the parts whereof have been reproduced in paragraph 19.7 hereinabove) depict rather unsure and irreconcilable o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the same basket contrary to Section 30(2)(b) and other submissions, the Adjudicating Authority has returned the finding that there is no violation of Section 30(2) of the IBC. In paragraphs 6.7 to 6.10, following has been held:- 6.7. The allegation relating to the gratuity fund has been dealt at Page 5 of the Resolution Plan (Annexed at Page 46 to this I.A.) as under : Out of the Upfront payment to Financial Creditors, a sum equivalent to Gratuity Liability as on 31 March 2023 (INR 37.03 Crore) would be held back and such funds would be deposited in a special escrow account to be maintained with the Resolution Applicant, opened with Axis Bank, in the manner provided hereinafter in this Plan. Payment of Gratuity (either due as on Insolvency Commencement Date or the date on which it becomes payable) will be made in the first place from the gratuity asset (NR 37.05 Crore as per the Actuarial Valuation Report available in the VDR) being maintained with KICM Gratuity Fund or if such fund is not available then from the funds maintained in such special escrow account in the manner detailed hereinafter in this Plan, 6.8. Regarding allegation relating to Plan value bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable sections of the I B Code. Therefore, the issues raised in this instant application does not survive and are liable to be dismissed. 11. It is also relevant to notice that submission which is advanced by the Appellant is with regard to discrimination in payments to the workers and employees. No workers and employees have any grievance nor any workers and employees is dissatisfied with the payments made under the plan to them nor have they come in Appeal. Plan has been approved with 82.40% vote shares of the CoC. We fully concur with a view of the Adjudicating Authority that there is no non-compliance of Section 30(2) of the IBC. 12. Coming to the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1534 of 2023. The application being IA No. 957 of 2023 filed by the Appellant claiming to be Financial Creditor was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority against which order the Appellant has filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1467 of 2023. By our separate order passed today in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1467 of 2023, we have already dismissed the Appeal filed by Kesoram Industries Limited . Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also raised submission that the Resolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
