2023 (8) TMI 258 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Challenge to approval of Resolution Plan - approval of the plan challenged on the ground that claim admitted of the Appellant was Rs.27,91,64,187/- whereas in the plan only an amount of Rs. 58,58,444/- has been allocated - HELD THAT - Similar issues were answered by this Tribunal in DEPARTMENT OF STATE TAX, THROUGH THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX VERSUS ZICOM SAAS PVT. LTD. ANR. 2023 (2) TMI 1170 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI where it was held that The Appellant having been treated as Operational Creditor allocation of amount in the Resolution Plan cannot be said to be in violation of Section 30 (2)(b). We thus are of the view that no ground has been made to interfere with the Impugned Order. The issues raised in the present Appeal are fully covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in Department of State Tax, Through the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax vs. Zicom Saas Pvt. Ltd. Anr. - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The delay in filing the appeal and the challenge to the approval of the plan based on the allocation of funds to a secured creditor.

Delay in filing the appeal:
The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was granted due to the reasons provided by the appellant, which included obtaining necessary approval and collecting documents. The delay of 14 days was condoned after sufficient cause was shown.

Challenge to the approval of the plan:
The appellant, Department of State Tax, contested the approval of the plan on the grounds that the allocated amount was significantly less than the admitted claim. The appellant claimed to be a secured creditor entitled to the entire claim. However, the respondent argued that the appellant could not be considered a secured creditor based on a previous judgment that had considered the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Values Added Tax Act, 2002.

Judgment and Decision:
The tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the relevant records. Referring to a previous judgment, the tribunal found that the issues raised in the present appeal were already addressed and decided in the earlier case. The tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the precedent set in the previous judgment, stating that the appellant could not be treated as a secured creditor and that the allocation of funds in the resolution plan did not violate the law. The appeal was ultimately dismissed in line with the previous judgment, concluding that there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.