2020 (8) TMI 454 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

CIRP process - it is alleged that Appellant did not file any claim as operational creditor or financial creditor and appellant does not come within the meaning of creditor - HELD THAT - The Appellant is neither operational creditor nor financial creditor or secured creditor or unsecured creditor or a decree-holder . Therefore, in the present case, the Appellant s claim is not a security interest or any other right as operational creditor or financial creditor and the appeal can be filed against approval of a plan by any aggrieved person o any ground, mentioned in subsection (3) of Section 61 of the I B Code. There is nothing on record to show that the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force or there has been any material irregularity in exercise of the powers by Resolution Professional (i) during the corporate insolvency resolution period; it is not the case of the Appellant that (ii) the debt owed to the operational creditors of the corporate debtor have not been provided in the resolution plan in the manner specified by the Board; or (iii) the insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts; or (iv) resolution plan does not comply with the criteria specified by the Board - As none of the criteria fulfils in this appeal, Section 61(3) of the I B Code is not attracted. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of Exim Bank in insolvency resolution process
2. Effect of resolution plan approval during pendency of appeal
3. Rebidding by Committee of Creditors
4. Challenge of Appellate Tribunal judgment in Supreme Court
5. Approval of resolution plan by Adjudicating Authority
6. Challenge of order by Geopetrol International Inc.
7. Claim of Geopetrol International Inc. as creditor
8. Grounds for appeal against resolution plan approval

Eligibility of Exim Bank in insolvency resolution process:
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to determine the eligibility of Exim Bank without influence from the Resolution Professional or Committee of Creditors.

Effect of resolution plan approval during pendency of appeal:
The resolution plan of Atyant Capital India Fund-I was approved by the Adjudicating Authority, but its implementation was halted due to the pending appeal by Exim Bank before the Appellate Tribunal.

Rebidding by Committee of Creditors:
The Appellate Tribunal clarified that the Committee of Creditors cannot engage in rebidding once resolution plans have been opened, addressing a request for rebidding from one of the resolution applicants.

Challenge of Appellate Tribunal judgment in Supreme Court:
The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal was challenged in the Supreme Court, leading to an interim order maintaining the status quo and eventual dismissal of the appeal.

Approval of resolution plan by Adjudicating Authority:
The Adjudicating Authority approved the resolution plan of Atyant Capital India Fund-I, making corrections to the facts of the case based on information brought forward by the Resolution Professional.

Challenge of order by Geopetrol International Inc.:
Geopetrol International Inc. challenged the order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the resolution plan, citing provisions of the Oil Fields Act and asserting a pre-emptive right under the Production Sharing Agreement.

Claim of Geopetrol International Inc. as creditor:
The Appellant, Geopetrol International Inc., claimed a first charge on the participating interest of the Corporate Debtor, arguing its rights under the Production Sharing Agreement and Joint Operating Agreement.

Grounds for appeal against resolution plan approval:
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals by Geopetrol International Inc. as it did not meet the criteria for appeal under Section 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, finding no contravention of law, irregularity, or non-compliance with specified criteria in the approved resolution plan.