9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors based on facts and circumstances of each case. In absence of any discrimination or perverse decision, it is not open to the Adjudicating Authority or this Appellate Tribunal to modify the plan. We find no merit in the appeal. They are dismissed Insofar the winding up proceedings or other litigations pending before any Court of law, we are not expressing any opinion as the Court of competent jurisdiction will decide the same - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 327 of 2017 And Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 328 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2018 - Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhaya And Mr. Bansi Lal Bhat, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Mayank Mishra and Mr. Ritunjay Gupta, Advocates For The Respondent : Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants submitted that the Resolution Plan has not taken care of the total outstanding dues of the appellants. Out of the total dues 5% of the principal amount has been allowed in favour of the appellant Darshak Enterprise Private Limited. In the case of Symphony Ltd., 5% of principal amount has been allowed with certain rider. It is submitted that the appellant Symphony Ltd. has already filed a winding up proceedings before the High Court of Mumbai, which is pending, in the meantime, the proceeding under Section 10 preferred by the Corporate Applicant has been admitted and the impugned order was passed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent Corporate Debtor submitted that the appellants had faile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be settled at 5% of its total outstanding within thirty days of the approval of the Resolution Plan. Accordingly, admittedly a cheque dated October 28, 2017 for ₹ 1,32,864/- (5% of the Appellant s total outstanding dues against the Respondent No. 1) was issued in favour of the Appellant, which was encashed by the Appellant. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit A are the relevant extracts from the Resolution Plan. 5. As regard the Symphony Limited, the respondent has taken the following stand: 4. I further state that despite the non-receipt of the Appellant s claim before the approval of the resolution plan by the committee of creditors (CoC) of the Corporate Debtor, i.e. the maximum time stipulated under regulation 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsolvency) No. 327 328 of 2017 Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit A are relevant extract from the Resolution Plan. 6. As is evident from all that is stated above, the Appellant s purported claim, on account of the pending litigation between the parties, falls under the category of Operational dues which are subject matter of litigation . Accordingly, any payment purportedly due to the Appellant is subject to the final adjudication of the claims. I say that should the contingency arise where it is finally adjudicated/held that monies are due from the Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant, then the same shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the Resolution Plan. 6. In these cases as we find that in spite of receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
