9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plan. We find no merit in the appeal Payment of supplied the goods during the period of the CIRP - As per Regulation 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, if the Appellant has supplied the goods during the period of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process to keep the company as a going concern, it was the duty of the Resolution Professional to include such cost towards Resolution Process Cost for payment in favour of Appellant for non-inclusion of the same, it can be held that the Resolution Plan in question is in violation of Section 30(2) (a) of the I B Code . However, taking into consideration the fact that it is failure on the part of the Resolution Professional who had not included the same nor looked into the matter, we do not want to put blame on Successful Resolution Applicant . However, to uphold the Resolution Plan and to hold that the plan is in accordance with law, subject to some modifications. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 156 of 2018 With Contempt Case (AT) No. 10 of 2018 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 156 of 2018 With Company Appeal (AT) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant- Mr. Sunil Jain submitted that the Interim Resolution Professional has acted in violation of Section 21 of the I B Code and there were serious allegations against him. The Interim Resolution Professional did not even consider nor paid the cost of basic essential services which were provided for keeping the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. On contrary, the amounts are due to different Operational Creditor for the goods supplied and services rendered to the Corporate Debtor during the Insolvency Resolution Process . 6. It was further submitted that Appellant- Mr. Sunil Jain, being a Promoter/Shareholder requested the members of the Committee of Creditors to inform him the amount of overdues so that he can pay the same to Banks to avoid his ineligibility under Section 29A (c) of the I B Code . However, the members of the Committee of Creditors did not take any action on such request. 7. It was further submitted that the Resolution Plan so approved is not in accordance with law as the right of the shareholders extinguished in violation of Sections 56 57 of the Companies Act, 2013. 8. From the record, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Relative Parasnath Crushers Pvt. Ltd. 8.28% Family controlled enterprise 11. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the Resolution Professional that as on the date of admission, the Corporate Debtor had only three Directors, one being Mr. Sunil Jain and the others Mr. Gouri Shankar Jain and Mr. Anil Jain. 12. In view of the stand taken by the Resolution Professional and not disputed by the Appellant, we hold that the Committee of Creditors rightly rejected the Resolution Plan submitted by Appellant- Mr. Sunil Jain, he being ineligible in terms of Section 29A (c). We have noticed that though time was allowed to Mr. Sunil Jain to pay the NPA amount of the Corporate Debtor in terms of Clause (c) of Section 29A but he expressed his inability to pay the same. 13. So far as right of Shareholders are concerned, from the record we find that shareholders claim have been taken into consideration by Successful Resolution Applicant in the Resolution Plan submitted by him. In view of proposal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Appeal (AT) (Insol.) No. 481 of 2018 19. Learned counsel for the Appellant- M/s. MV Projects submitted that it is a sole proprietorship concern, which is a supplier of coal for the business of the Divya Jyoti Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. - ( Corporate Debtor ). The supply of coal has been made to the Corporate Debtor even after the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 23rd August 2017 i.e. during the Insolvency Resolution Process to keep the company as a going concern. The Resolution Professional placed orders with the Appellant even after initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process . An amount of ₹ 26,68,298/- remained outstanding which is due and payable to the Appellant. 20. The Resolution Professional has not filed any reply denying the claim aforesaid. As per the provisions of the I B Code and the Regulations framed, the Insolvency Resolution Cost is payable in priority to other costs both in the case of success of Resolution and in the case of liquidation without any haircuts. The Adjudicating Authority by impugned order dated 11th July, 2018 has not addressed the afores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 reads as follows: 30. Submission of resolution plan ─ (2) The resolution professional shall examine each resolution plan received by him to confirm that each resolution plan- (a) provides for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a manner specified by the Board in priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor ; 24. Regulation 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 deals with Insolvency Resolution Process Costs and reads as follows: 31. Insolvency resolution process costs. ─ Insolvency resolution process costs under section 5(13) (e) shall mean─ (a) Amounts due to suppliers of essential goods and services under Regulation 32; [(aa) fee payable to authorized representative under sub-regulation (7) of regulation 16A;] [(ab) out of pocket expenses of authorized representative for discharge of his functions under section 25;] (b) Amounts due to a person whose rights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
