2022 (2) TMI 1483 - Tri - IBC

Approval of Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor - section 30(6) and section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w regulation 39 (4) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution process for Corporate Persons) - HELD THAT - The conditions provided under Section 31(1) are that the resolution plan is approved by Committee of Creditors under Section 30 (4) of the Code and that the resolution plan so approved meets the requirement of Section 30(2) and that the Resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation. Section 30(2)(a) the Resolution Plan provides in payment of Rs. 75 lakhs towards CIRP cost within a period of 15 days of effective date and in priority for the Creditors, section 30(2)(b) it is stated that the Form H states that the fair value of the Corporate Debtor is 18,61,29,096/-and the Liquidation value is 33,83,34,076/- - The Resolution Plan proposes to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the Secured Financial Creditor Rs. 0.54 lakhs to the workmen and employees, the resolution plan proposes that the dues payable to the unsecured financial creditors shall be entirely paid/ written off, the plan also provides that 5% of statutory dues will be paid i.e. 0.86 lakhs will be paid and the balance will be waived off, the operational creditors would be paid an amount of Rs. 6.7 lakhs within a period of 60 days. The existing equity shares shall get written off and 10 lakhs new equity shares of Rs. 10 each for cash at par shall be issued to resolution applicant. Reliance placed on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of K. Shashidhar Vs IOB 2019 (2) TMI 1043 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was held inter alia that no corresponding provision has been envisage by the legislature to empower the Resolution Professional, Adjudicating Authority, of that matter NCLAT to reverse the commercial decision of the CoC. It is also held that the commercial decision of Financial Creditor are not open for judicial review by Adjudicating authority and by Appellate Authority. Therefore, in view of the above discussion. The decision taken by the Financial Creditor/CoC Members falls within the ambit of its commercial and banking wisdom and is therefore not being interfere with. Conclusion - The decision taken by the CoC falls within the ambit of its commercial wisdom and cannot be interfere with. The Resolution Plan as approved is binding on the Corporate Debtor and other stakeholders involved so that the revival of the Corporate Debtor can come into force with immediate effect - Application disposed off.

2025 (1) TMI 82 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the Resolution Plan submitted by JVD Life Space for the Corporate Debtor complies with the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and its associated regulations.
Whether the Resolution Plan meets the approval criteria set out under Section 31 of the IBC.
Whether the claims of secured and unsecured creditors, including statutory and operational creditors, are adequately addressed in the Resolution Plan.
Whether the extinguishment of claims not part of the Resolution Plan is permissible under the IBC framework.
Whether the Resolution Plan appropriately addresses the attachment order passed by the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA and its implications on the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Compliance with IBC Requirements

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Resolution Plan must comply with Sections 30 and 31 of the IBC, which outline the requirements for approval by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the Resolution Plan met the criteria under Section 30(2) and was approved by the CoC as per Section 30(4).
Key Evidence and Findings: The Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC with a 100% voting share, indicating compliance with Section 30(4).
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the Resolution Plan adhered to the statutory requirements, including payment priorities and creditor treatment.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered arguments related to the adequacy of creditor payments and compliance with legal provisions.
Conclusions: The Resolution Plan was found compliant with the IBC and was thus eligible for approval.

Issue 2: Approval Criteria under Section 31

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 31 of the IBC requires that the Resolution Plan be approved by the Adjudicating Authority if it meets the requirements of Section 30(2).
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal verified that the Plan provided for insolvency costs, operational creditor payments, and compliance with legal provisions.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Plan included provisions for CIRP costs, creditor payments, and a monitoring committee for implementation.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal confirmed that the Plan's provisions aligned with the statutory requirements, facilitating its approval.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal addressed concerns regarding the extinguishment of claims and the adequacy of creditor settlements.
Conclusions: The Plan satisfied Section 31's criteria and was approved by the Tribunal.

Issue 3: Treatment of Creditor Claims

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The IBC outlines the hierarchy of claims and the treatment of secured, unsecured, and operational creditors.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal assessed the Plan's provisions for creditor payments and extinguishment of claims not included in the Plan.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Plan proposed settlements for secured creditors like Dewan Housing Finance Limited and outlined the treatment of unsecured and operational creditors.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the Plan's creditor treatment was consistent with IBC provisions and judicial precedents.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered objections related to claim extinguishment and creditor settlements.
Conclusions: The Plan's treatment of creditor claims was deemed appropriate and compliant with the IBC.

Issue 4: Extinguishment of Claims

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company, which addresses extinguishment of claims not part of a resolution plan.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that claims not included in the Plan were extinguished, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Plan provided for the extinguishment of claims, aligning with judicial precedents.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal precedent to uphold the extinguishment of claims not part of the Plan.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal addressed concerns regarding the fairness and legality of claim extinguishment.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the extinguishment of claims not included in the Plan.

Issue 5: Attachment Order by Enforcement Directorate

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 238 of the IBC provides that its provisions override other laws, including attachment orders under PMLA.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal vacated the attachment order under PMLA, citing Section 238 of the IBC.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the attachment's impact on the Corporate Debtor's assets and the need for resolution.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal exercised its powers under Section 238 to address the attachment order.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the implications of the attachment on the Resolution Plan's implementation.
Conclusions: The attachment order was vacated to facilitate the Plan's implementation.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the supremacy of the IBC in resolving insolvency matters, including the extinguishment of claims not part of a resolution plan and the overriding effect of Section 238.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal approved the Resolution Plan, affirming its compliance with the IBC, the adequacy of creditor treatment, and the extinguishment of claims not included in the Plan.
Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The limited judicial review available, which can in no circumstance trespass upon a business decision of the majority of the Committee of Creditors, has to be within the four corners of section 30(2) of the Code."

The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory framework of the IBC and respecting the commercial wisdom of the CoC in insolvency resolutions.

← Previous Next →