2024 (4) TMI 437 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Approval of Resolution Plan - Validity of the order of Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) wherein it held that Rishima cannot be called as a Financial Creditor and Rishima being a Decree Holder of a foreign award can be treated as other creditor. The application of the respondent was partly allowed by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT - It is clear that in the Resolution Plan which stood approved by the Adjudicating Authority and also upheld by this Tribunal by its order of the date in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.143 of 2024 2024 (4) TMI 305 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI , the total claim of the Appellant has been admitted as Rs.132,89,75,268/- and has been allocated Rs.1 Lakh. In this appeal it is not necessary for us to enter into the issue whether the Adjudicating Authority s order dated 30.11.2023 partly allowing the application of Rishima needs to be upheld or not. The order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority has been given effect to as reflected in the Resolution Plan which stands approved on 04.01.2024. There are no reason to enter into various submissions raised by the Appellant questioning order dated 30.11.2023. In view of approval of Resolution Plan on 04.01.2024, in which Resolution Plan order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority has been given effect to, there is no occasion to consider challenge to the said order in this appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the classification of a creditor, and the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award:
The Appellant, a Resolution Professional, challenged an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the admission of a claim by Rishima SA Investments LLC (Mauritius) based on a foreign arbitral award. The Adjudicating Authority held that Rishima should be treated as an "other creditor" rather than a financial creditor due to being a decree holder of a foreign award. The Resolution Professional contended that the arbitral award pending consideration in the Delhi High Court should not be equated with a court decree, and thus, Rishima's claim was rightly admitted for a nominal value of Re.1. The CoC supported the Resolution Professional's stance, arguing that a foreign award does not automatically equate to a decree.

Approval of Resolution Plan:
Subsequent to the Adjudicating Authority's order partly allowing Rishima's application, a Resolution Plan submitted by a Successful Resolution Applicant was approved. The Resolution Plan allocated a nominal amount of Rs.1 Lakh against Rishima's total claim of Rs.132,89,75,268. The Adjudicating Authority's order was given effect in the approved Resolution Plan, and the Tribunal upheld the Resolution Plan, dismissing the appeal challenging the Adjudicating Authority's order. The Tribunal noted the amounts claimed, admitted, and provided under the Resolution Plan, affirming the allocation of Rs.1 Lakh against Rishima's claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that with the approval of the Resolution Plan, which reflected the Adjudicating Authority's order, there was no need to further consider the challenge to the said order in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the allocation of Rs.1 Lakh against Rishima's claim as per the approved Resolution Plan.