9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 214 - SC - IBCApproval of the Resolution Plan - grievance put forth by the Appellant is with regard to the Appellant not being informed about the auction proceedings which were initiated at behest of the RP, thus, depriving it of its participation in the said proceedings - HELD THAT - It has come on record and stands admitted that the Resolution Plan had already been implemented and the dues as found payable under the Resolution Plan have been disbursed to the concerned parties. As regards the Appellant is concerned, the amount was disbursed vide Demand Draft dated 22.10.2020 which has been received and accepted by the Appellant. Leading to the dismissal of the appeal vide impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2022. Having perused the record while bearing in mind the extensive observations made by 3-Judge Bench of this Court in COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF ESSAR STEEL INDIA LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS SATISH KUMAR GUPTA OTHERS 2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT , and its reiteration by numerous subsequent decisions of this Court such as the EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED ANR., KUNDAN CARE PRODUCTS LIMITED VERSUS MR AMIT GUPTA AND ORS. AND SEROCO LIGHTING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS RAVI KAPOOR RP FOR ARYA FILAMENTS PRIVATE LIMTIED ORS. 2021 (9) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT , the present is not in a position to accept the claim of the Appellant as sought to be made and put forth in these appeals. The Orders dated 05.10.2020 and 27.11.2020, as have been passed by the NCLT and approved by the NCLAT vide its impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2022, do not call for any interference in the present Appeals. The appeals being devoid of merit, stand dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to NCLAT's judgment on approval of Resolution Plan and rejection of application | Default on lease payments by Corporate Debtor | CIRP initiation by Appellant | Valuation of Corporate Debtor | Approval of Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors | Disbursement of claim amount | Exemptions from NSEZ rules in Resolution Plan | Valuation process challenge | Disputed payment amount | Statutory dues extinguishment | Commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors | Exemptions from NSEZ payments | Implementation of Resolution Plan | Appellant's claim rejection | Interference with NCLAT's decision | No costs order. Detailed Analysis: The Appeals challenged the NCLAT's Judgment on the approval of the Resolution Plan and the rejection of the Appellant's application. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on lease payments, leading to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by the Appellant. The Appellant claimed INR 6.29 Crores, which was admitted by the Resolution Professional (RP). Valuation of the Corporate Debtor was conducted, and the Resolution Plan prepared by the Resolution Applicant was approved by the Committee of Creditors. The Appellant objected to the Resolution Plan approval, seeking full payment of its claim. The NCLT approved the Resolution Plan, granting only INR 50 Lakhs to the Appellant. The Appellant challenged this decision, which was dismissed by the NCLT. Subsequently, the Appellant appealed to the NCLAT, which also dismissed the appeals. The Appellant raised concerns about not being informed of auction proceedings and exemptions in the Resolution Plan from NSEZ rules. The Appellant also challenged the valuation process and the disputed payment amount. The NCLAT upheld the Resolution Plan, emphasizing the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors. The Judgment highlighted the fair and liquidation valuation of the Corporate Debtor, citing relevant legal precedents. It addressed statutory dues extinguishment and the non-interference with commercial decisions of the Committee of Creditors. The implementation of the Resolution Plan and disbursement of dues were confirmed, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The Court rejected the Appellant's claims, citing precedents and legal provisions. It emphasized the overriding effect of IBC 2016 over other laws, including SEZ Act 2005. The implementation of the Resolution Plan and disbursement of dues were crucial factors in dismissing the appeals. The Judgment concluded that the NCLAT's decisions did not warrant interference, and no costs order was issued.
|
