9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1080 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking approval/revision of Resolution Plan - claim of the applicant is that after the approval of the Resolution Plan, the applicant has approached the GNIDA for sanction of the plan which is still pending for approval by the Respondent - HELD THAT - Section 60(5)(c) of IBC, 2016 says that any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code shall be considered by the Adjudicating Authority. A bare perusal of the provision of Section 5 (14) of IBC, 2016, shows that the insolvency resolution process period means the period of one hundred and eighty days beginning from the insolvency commencement date and ending on one hundred and eightieth day - this period of 180 days may be extended under Section 12 of IBC, 2016. In view of the amended provision of Section 12 of IBC, 2016, the total period of insolvency resolution process can be of 330 days. Which means, the period so referred to in Section 5(14) of IBC, 2016 is subject to the extension made under Section 12 of IBC, 2016 or till when the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Admittedly, the Resolution Plan has already been approved - the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 20.02.2020. Therefore, no insolvency proceeding is pending before the Adjudicating Authority. Section 60 (5) of IBC, 2016 is applicable only if any insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person is pending before the Adjudicating Authority and in the instant case, it is seen that no such proceeding is pending before this Authority, therefore, the application filed by the applicant under Section 60 (5) of IBC, 2016 is not maintainable - the prayer of the applicant to give direction of the Respondent/GNIDA for the sanction of the plan is hereby rejected - application dismissed.
Issues:
- Approval of the sanction plan by GNIDA for Project Maple Realcon Pvt. Ltd. - Obligations of GNIDA as a stakeholder under the Resolution Plan. - Dispute over ownership rights and financial obligations. - Application's maintainability under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016. Analysis: 1. The Applicant sought directions for GNIDA to approve the sanction plan for Project Maple Realcon Pvt. Ltd. as per the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Applicant contended that GNIDA had outstanding dues, and the Resolution Plan included provisions for repayment. Payments were made as per the plan, but GNIDA did not respond to requests for approval. 2. GNIDA argued its right to retain ownership over the land due to the lease granted to the Corporate Debtor. It claimed entitlement to dues as a Financial Creditor and cited legal precedents to support its position. 3. The Tribunal considered the Applicant's plea under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016. The section grants jurisdiction to the NCLT for matters related to corporate debtors, including claims and insolvency resolution proceedings. The Tribunal analyzed the provision's applicability to the current case. 4. The Tribunal concluded that since the Resolution Plan had been approved, questions of priorities or law arising from insolvency resolution were not relevant at that stage. The insolvency resolution process period was defined, and it was noted that no pending proceedings existed before the Adjudicating Authority. 5. As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016 as not maintainable. The request for GNIDA's sanction was rejected, but the Applicant was allowed to approach GNIDA separately without prejudice from the Tribunal's decision. The application was dismissed, emphasizing the Resolution Plan's approval and the lack of ongoing insolvency proceedings.
|
