Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (11) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmittee of Creditors having voting right of 3.94%, has assented to the approval of the resolution plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant. After admission of Appellant s claim by the Resolution Professional he can hardly have a grievance against the Resolution Professional. Though, the Appellant appears to have raised an objection in regard to inclusion of uninvoked Bank Guarantees in the admitted claim, its approval of the resolution plan as an assenting Financial Creditor would estop it from questioning the same resolution plan, though only in regard to distribution mechanism, which admittedly rests upon commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, who set apart amount of ₹ 135 Crores as contingency fund to take care of cert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Committee of Creditors in the Resolution Process of GVR Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) and who voted in favour of the approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by UVARC (Successful Resolution Applicant) has filed the instant appeal assailing the approval of the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant as regards distribution mechanism. The Appellant in terms of the impugned order is also aggrieved of dismissal of its application being MA No. 99 of 2020 in C.P. No. 941/IB/2018 seeking revision of share proportion of the resolution fund amongst the Secured Financial Creditors equally which also came to be dismissed in terms of the same impugned order. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The Appellant appears to be aggrieved of allocation of ₹ 135 Crores by the Resolution Professional in regard to uninvoked Bank Guarantees. From the record, it comes to fore that the total admitted claims of the Financial Creditors of ₹ 2271.08 Crores were to be settled for an amount of ₹ 352 Crores. This included claim for a total amount of 86,09,59,759/- submitted by Appellant which had been admitted by the Resolution Professional. It further appears that it is post-approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant that the Appellant filed M.A. 99 of 2020 seeking direction from the Adjudicating Authority for revision of share proportion of the Resolution Fund amongst the Secured Financial .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019) , (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1478, the Hon ble Apex Court held that the limited judicial review available under section 30(2) to the Adjudicating Authority and under Section 61(3) to the Appellate Tribunal cannot trespass upon the business decision of the majority of the Committee of Creditors. The parameters of limited judicial review stand clearly laid down in K. Shashidhar s case (supra). 5. Taking a holistic view of the provisions of the successful resolution plan into account, the Adjudicating Authority was of the view that the same was not in conflict with the provisions of Section 30(2) of the I B Code. Thus, the resolution plan in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uccessful Resolution Applicant was put to vote by the Committee of Creditors. The scope of judicial review under Section 61(3) of I B Code being limited to grounds enumerated therein and no material irregularity having been shown to have occurred during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellant has no case. It is not the Appellant s grievance that he has been discriminated against as a dissenting Financial Creditor or that his admitted claim has not been taken into consideration while allocating the amount in terms of the distribution mechanism found perfectly in order by the Adjudicating Authority. 6. In the given .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates