2021 (9) TMI 1208 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33(4) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - In the Present case contention of Applicant is that Total outstanding to the tune of ₹ 87,39,196/- were not admitted, instead only ₹ 70,00,000/- were admitted. Applicant also plead that they were not aware about this fact that there claim were not admitted in totality - When the resolution Plan is approved with ₹ 70,00,000/- out of ₹ 87,39,196/- of Applicants claim, now at this juncture it can t be reverse by virtue of Section 32A of the IBC, there could be no question as to the successful Resolution Applicant, being saddled with the outstanding dues. Section 32A is retrospective in operation. The accepting and modifying terms and conditions laid down in the Resolution Plan fall within the domain of commercial wisdom of the CoC and this Adjudicating Authority is not expected to substitute its view in such Resolution plan approved by the CoC. Hence such prayer cannot be allowed and is rejected. Application rejected.

Issues:
1. Contravention of terms of Resolution Plan approved by the Tribunal
2. Non-payment of pending dues to employees by the Successful Resolution Applicant
3. Failure of Monitoring Agency to ensure proper implementation of Resolution Plan
4. Dispute regarding admitted claims of employees
5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to modify the approved Resolution Plan

Analysis:
1. The application filed by the Attorney Holder on behalf of employees alleged contravention of the Resolution Plan terms approved by the Tribunal. The Resolution Plan included provisions for retention of existing employees and payment of pending salaries within a specified timeframe. The Respondent No.1, as the Successful Resolution Applicant, was obligated to adhere to these terms.

2. The employees claimed non-payment of their pending dues by the Successful Resolution Applicant, amounting to a significant sum. Despite the Resolution Plan's clear directives for payment within a specified period, the employees had not received their salaries for the months of August and September 2019. This non-compliance raised concerns regarding the financial obligations towards the employees.

3. The Monitoring Agency, appointed to oversee the implementation of the Resolution Plan, was accused of failing to ensure proper execution. The lack of supervision and follow-up by the Monitoring Agency led to delays and non-compliance issues, contributing to the grievances of the employees regarding non-payment of dues.

4. A dispute arose concerning the claims submitted by the employees and the amount admitted by the Resolution Professional. The employees alleged unawareness of the partial rejection of their claims, resulting in discrepancies in the admitted amounts. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents emphasizing the importance of clarity in admitted claims to prevent uncertainties for the Successful Resolution Applicant.

5. The Tribunal addressed the jurisdictional aspect of modifying the approved Resolution Plan. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal clarified that it lacked the authority to modify the terms and conditions of the approved Resolution Plan. The Tribunal highlighted the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving the Resolution Plan and emphasized its role in upholding the decisions made by the CoC.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing the limitations on modifying the approved Resolution Plan and the retrospective operation of relevant legal provisions. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to Resolution Plan terms, clarity in admitted claims, and the role of the Monitoring Agency in ensuring proper implementation.

← Previous Next →