2023 (8) TMI 618 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking rectification of error which is an inadvertent one - secured creditor of corporate debtor - HELD THAT - It must be borne in mind that the ambit of the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal, subsequent to the Approval of Resolution Plan, is limited in character. That apart, any relief sought, which can alter, the Terms Of a Resolution Plan, cannot be acceded to, as opined by this Tribunal However, if any relief, as prayed for by the Appellant/ Petitioner, as projected in IA/361/IB/2020 in CP(IB)540/CHE/2017 (being the Correct Company Petition Number, according to the Appellant , instead of C.P.(IB)/889(CHE)/2019), is granted by the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal or this Appellate Tribunal , for that matter, then, the same will not satisfy the requirement of Law . This Tribunal , pertinently points out that even the Hon ble Supreme Court had Approved the Resolution Plan , through, its Order dated 28/02/2020, (which is not in dispute), and the same is accepted by the Learned Counsels appearing for the respective Parties. Suffice it for this Tribunal , to succinctly point out, that in one of the Miscellaneous Applications , dated 03/07/2019 filed before the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal , the Appellant / Petitioner had tacitly admitted , its position as an Unsecured Financial Creditor . This Tribunal bearing in mind the attendant facts and circumstances of the instant case in a conspectus and holistic manner, comes to a consequent conclusion that the Impugned Order, does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality', in the eye of Law . Accordingly, the Appeal sans merits. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the categorization of the appellant as an 'Unsecured Creditor', the relief sought by the appellant to be recognized as a 'Secured Financial Creditor', the approval and implementation of the Resolution Plan, and the legal infirmities in the Impugned Order.

Background:
The Appellant filed Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 251/2023 challenging the Impugned Order dated 12/05/2023 in IA/361/IB/2020 in C.P.(IB)/540(CHE)/2017 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - II, Chennai. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Appellant's application seeking intervention without costs.

Prelude:
The correct Company Petition number is C.P.(IB)/540/(CHE)/2017, not C.P.(IB)/IB/889/(CHE)/2019 as mentioned in the Impugned Order. The Appellant's Counsel pointed out the error and sought rectification.

Appellant's Pleas:
The Appellant sought a declaration as a 'Secured Creditor' and requested that any allocation of funds under a Resolution Plan recognize its status as a 'Secured Financial Creditor'. The Appellant argued that the application's dismissal suffered from serious legal infirmities.

Respondent's stance:
The Respondent contended that the Appellant was categorized as an 'Unsecured Financial Creditor' during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Committee of Creditors approved the Resolution Plan, resulting in a change in control and ownership of the Corporate Debtor.

Pros & Cons:
The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction post-Approval of Resolution Plan is limited. Any relief altering the terms of a Resolution Plan cannot be granted. The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's approval of the Resolution Plan and the Appellant's admission as an 'Unsecured Financial Creditor'.

Result:
After considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the Impugned Order did not have material irregularity or patent illegality. The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 251/2023 was dismissed with no costs.