9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 322 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - Waterfall mechanism - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - The Scheme in relation to the Corporate Debtor viz. NOCL which has been proposed under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the attendant provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was approved by this Tribunal. As per the said Scheme proposed by the Scheme proponent viz. M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Limited, the Project Assets of the Corporate Debtor stands vested with the Scheme Proponents and as such the Scheme as sanctioned by this Tribunal in respect of the Corporate Debtor is also binding upon the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor which also includes the Appellant herein. Even though the claim of the Operational Creditor is admitted then as per the waterfall mechanism which has been provided under the Scheme none of the Operational Creditor would have been paid and only the dues of the Financial Creditors have been settled by the Scheme proponents. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
- Appeal filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited under Section 42 of IBC, 2016 seeking relief as an Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor. - Dispute over non-admission of claim by the Respondent and rejection of the claim by the Liquidator. - Failure to open Letter of Credit by Corporate Debtor leading to dispute over payment. - Allegations of non-fulfillment of terms of Purchase Order by the Appellant. - Counter arguments by the Respondent regarding non-delivery of goods and payment of advance amount. - Legal implications of the approved Scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the present case. Analysis: 1. The Appellant, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, filed an Appeal seeking relief as an Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor, challenging the rejection of its claim. The Appellant entered into a Purchase Order with the Corporate Debtor for a hydrogen recycle gas compressor package, but faced issues regarding payment schedules and the opening of a Letter of Credit by the Corporate Debtor. 2. The Appellant claimed to have completed fabrication of the goods as per the Purchase Order and requested the Corporate Debtor to open the Letter of Credit for the remaining payment. However, the Corporate Debtor delayed the process citing revised project schedules, leading to a dispute over non-payment and non-admission of the claim. 3. The Respondent, representing the Liquidator, countered by alleging that the Appellant failed to deliver the goods as per the Purchase Order terms and only invoiced a portion of the total value. Additionally, the Respondent highlighted the non-provision of a Performance Bank Guarantee by the Appellant. 4. The Respondent argued that the Corporate Debtor had the right to terminate the Purchase Order if goods were not delivered on time, with provisions for liquidated damages. The Respondent also emphasized the payment of a significant sum to the Appellant without receiving the material and sought repayment with interest. 5. The Tribunal considered the legal implications of the approved Scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the case. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, citing the binding nature of the approved Scheme and the prioritization of Financial Creditors' dues over Operational Creditors in the settlement process. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on the applicable legal framework and precedents.
|
