9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... left out while making of the Resolution Plan and hence claiming of the money after the passing of the Resolution Plan seems unjustifiable and unreasonable as sufficient opportunity has already been provided to submit the claims earlier, after admission of the application and ordered Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - This was done to ensure that no further such of this kind of dispute would arise in the future. Hence, in a situation where the claims submitted by the creditors, inclusive of the operational creditors, have been duly met by the applicant, no question of reclaiming the full amount or a part of it or some different amount arises which pertains to a period prior to commencement of CIRP. A Successful Resolution Applicant is not to be burdened with undecided claims at the stage of implementation of the Resolution Plan. The Successful Resolution Applicant is to be provided with a company free from past liabilities. It has been rightly understood that a Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be saddled with past liabilities indefinitely. Such an act will make it impossible for the Successful Resolution Applicant to run the business of the Corporate Debtor effective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e statutory liabilities are bound to be paid - it is evident that the Resolution Plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors is by and large sanctioned by the Order dated 23.01.2019. It has been held that the Adjudicating Authority is not required to go into the merits or reasoning of the decision taken by the COC for approval or rejection of a Resolution Plan. The only benchmark which is set up to be determined by the Adjudicating Authority is to see whether the plan has been approved by 75% voting of the COC or not? Therefore, it is clear that the commercial wisdom of CoC is not allowed to be interfered with. The Central Government , State Government and local authority , who are entitled for dues arising out of the existing law are Operational Creditor within the meaning of Section 5(20) of the I B Code . As the statutory dues are operational debts, and once a Resolution Plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the treatment of all stakeholders, including Operational Creditors, is to be determined as per the terms of the CoC approved Resolution Plan. A stakeholder cannot afford to sleep over his claims and fail to submit it on time and come forward a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other Assistant Commissioner Versus Merchem Limited and another The Tahsildar (Land), Paravoor Taluk Another Versus Merchem Limited Another The Electrical Inspector and another Versus Merchem Limited another Hon ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (Judicial) For applicants in MA.9/KOB/2019 :Advocates. RaviRajagopalan/Ramalingam, For applicants in M.A/12/KOB/2020 Advocates M/s Bechu Kurien Company For applicants in MA 16 to 19/KOB/2020:Advocate Muhammed Fazil, Govt.Pleader For respondents in MA 09/KOB/2019 : Adv. Muhammed Fazil, Govt.Pleader for R1,R2,R5, R6, R12, R13 and R14 Adv. P.Benjamin Paul, R7,R8 R9 Adv. Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal for R.15 R16 Adv.S.Gopakumar for R19 Adv. Paul Jacob for R.20, R21 R 22 Adv.Akhil Suresh, R10 R11 Adv.T. Naveen for R3. For Respondents in M.As 12, 16,17, 18 19/KOB/2020 Adv.Ramalingam for R1 Shri Ravindra Belayur, R.P. for R2 ORDER All the aforesaid M.As are considered together being inter-connected and pass the following common order. 2. M.A./9/KOB/2019 has been filed by Merchem Limited represented by its authorized signatory -B Unnikrishnan Nair, Corporate Debtor in CP (I.B) No. 689 of 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the stakeholders 6. The learned counsel for the RP stated that the aforesaid Resolution Plan is presently under implementation with the management of the Corporate Debtor Company/Applicant having been taken over by the SRA and its nominees assuming office as its Directors. 7. The learned counsel further stated that Respondents 1 to 25 in this application are Statutory Creditors or local authorities and their supervisory bodies, under the Central or the State Governments of Kerala and Gujarat and are Operational Creditors within the definition of Section 5(20) read with Section 5(21) of the Code. 8. It is stated that none of these Operational Creditors filed any Claim before the IRP or RP within time, in so far as their antecedent operational debt is concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the Regulations thereunder. Thus, there was no admitted liability to be paid to these Respondents under the Resolution Plan which was approved by the Chennai Bench of the NCLT under Section 31(1) of the Code. 9. It is further stated that in accordance with the Resolution Plan the Claim as well as the debt in respect of the same, for every one of the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd insisting on remittance of the amounts due in the name of the Corporate Debtor in their books, which claim/obligation/debt, this Applicant had been discharged from, under the approved Resolution Plan. 13. The Applicant further submits that as of date, the Respondents have refused to heed the Applicant's request but are seeking payments. Thus, the Respondents herein are in continuing default of their obligations under the Code, by persisting with their actions enumerated in points (a) to (d) above and thus refusing to be bound by the approved Resolution Plan. 14. Further in so far as the Respondents State of Kerala and State of Gujarat being the representing statutory authorities for the purposes of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2016, have framed Rules and also rolled out the GsT Software System whereby current and future taxes (period subsequent to approval of Resolution Plan) cannot be paid by the Applicant Corporate Debtor, unless past dues pertaining to earlier years prior to CIRP Commencement date or Resolution Plan approval date, are paid. It is, therefore, imperative that for the Corporate Debtor to properly maintain the GST books, upon commencement of commercial a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Code. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing circumstances, the applicant prayed to allow this application and dismiss all other application filed separately. COUNTER FILED BY R1 R2 : 20. The R1 R2 submitted that these respondents issued communication No. L-1/7995/2017/F B dated 27.03.2018 to the applicant company. In response to the same, the R2 issued a communication to the Insolvency Resolution Professional Mr. Raveendra Beleyor demanding the factory license fee to be remitted by the company as ₹ 1,34,037/-. 21. It is submitted that According to Section 17 (2) (d) of I B Code 2016 R.P or IRP have the authority to access the books of account, records and other relevant documents of the Corporate Debtor available with Government Authorities, Statutory Auditors, Accountants and such other persons as specified. In this case, this can be easily verifiable from the companies books of account by the IRP, but this exercise was not done by the R.P. It is further stated that liability of the company that was existing during the Resolution Process cannot be written off altogether on the ground that it was not submitted to R.P or IRP as this liability ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er referred to as Water Act) for discharging its duties and functions under the above Act within the territory of State of Kerala. With regard to the averment to the effect that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not filed any claim before the IRP or RP with respect to their alleged antecedent operational debt in accordance with the provisions of the Code and there was no admitted liability to be paid to respondents under the Resolution Plan, approved by the NCLT, by granting concessions/exemptions as enumerated under Para 7.2 (A B), 8.1(A,N,O,P,Q,R,S) Para Nos. 8.3, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8 and 8.9 of the Resolution Plan, a perusal of the said Order dated 23.1.2019 approving the Resolution Plan shows that certain specific reliefs and concessions were sought by the applicant from the NCLT and from other Government Authorities. 26. Since the reliefs and concessions sought by various parties, M/s. Merchem Ltd. will not be absolved from its liability to pay the amounts towards NCEF Projects/Kuzhikkandom Thodu Remediation and the Water Supply Scheme to the affected families of Eloor Municipality and also from the liabilities, penalties etc. for the period pertaining prior to the effective d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenging the direction issued by the Board to make contribution for setting up water supply system. The above Writ Petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 28-3-2018, which categorically establish the fact that M/s. Merchem Ltd. is liable to bear their share of expenses towards the water supply to the affected families of Eloor Municipality. 29. The learned counsel appearing for R3 stated that, the NCLT has not given approval to clause 8.1 F, by which the Resolution applicant specifically sought regularisation and waiver of non-compliances pertaining to environment, water and forests. The liability to bear the cost of Water Supply Scheme fastened on M/s. Merchem Ltd. was on the basis of the clear finding that the operation of the said Unit resulted in drastic deterioration of drinking water quality in and around of Eloor Municipality area. 30. The learned counsel for R3 further stated that Para 8.1 P in the Resolution Plan deals with settling of all legal proceedings and other contingent liabilities, irrevocably and unconditionally, other than those explicitly covered in the Resolution Plan. The expression to settle denotes settling of liabilities/issues by mutual agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company has not filed the application with relevant documents for renewal or revalidation. 34. The learned counsel appearing for R5 R6 argued that as the NCLT disallowed applicants claim No. 8.4 and passed its order there is no derogation of the order of the NCLT and that, no provisions of the Code are violated by the Respondent Nos. 5 6 as alleged. Further in the letter dated 29.08.2019, the Respondent s office has extended its support for implementation of Resolution Plan on submitting application with all required supporting documents and clearing all dues but the applicant has not submitted any application with required documents for the effective implementation of Resolution Plan for continuing electricity. 35. The learned counsel for the Respondents argued that an interim reliefs sought by the applicant for renewal of consumer number LCN/25/3284 and LCN/31/3414. LCN/25/3284 is of MERCHEM LTD and LCN 31/3414 is the consumer number of MERCHEM INDIA (P) LTD and the NCLT passed the order for MERCHEM LTD only. It is further argued that the respondent nos. 5 6 being a statutory body do not have objection in the implementation of Resolution Plan, if the dues were clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents. The applicant company is one among the four and has to remit the water charges. But it has not paid the same and hence the Pollution Control Board has not so far remitted the water charges to these respondents. The writ petition filed by the applicant company before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala was dismissed by the judgement dated 28.03.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 20184 of 2006. Hence the allegation that the applicant is not bound to remit the charges is not sustainable. 38. The learned counsel further submitted that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 30.06.2012 was signed by the polluting companies of Eloor Area in which Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) has to supply 1 mld water to the residents of the affected area and the respondents have to collect the water charge shares from the companies including the applicant to FACT. The applicant company has not remitted its share to the tune of ₹ 23,52,219/- at the rate of 21.25/KL upto December 2019. The amount due upto 31.03.2019 was ₹ 20,18,061/-. It is stated that since the payment was not made by the applicant, the respondent could not remit the same as per the MOU and the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Proceedings No. B5-11998/96 dated 03.07.1997. It is pertinent to note here that the company admitted the encroachment by paying the Nirodhanakaram till the Financial Year 2006-2007. The imposition of Nirodhanakaram was cancelled by the Respondents office as per Proceedings No. D1-4704/07 dated 16.06.2007 and steps for initiating the eviction of the company from Government land was proceeded. Against this step, the company approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing W.P(C) No. 21781/07. In the Writ Petition, the applicant company admitted that there is a puramboke land (Government Land) within the premises and they have shown their readiness to surrender another 52.500 cents in the same compound of the Company. That shows that they had the full knowledge that they had encroached the Government land by erecting the compound wall and erecting intentionally their plant on the puramboke land. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, directing the Government to decide on their contentions and make a request to the Company for assignment after hearing the petitioner. 43. Based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in OP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,8.6,8.7,8.8 and 8.9 of the Resolution Plan. Concession sought in the Resolution Plan Viz 8.1(B, C,D,E.F.G.H,I,J,K,L,M,T,U) 8.2,8.4,8.10 stands disallowed by the NCLT, so the applicant is not in a position to enjoy concessions with respect to matters referred in the above items including Government dues. COUNTER FILED BY R14: 45. In their counter, Respondent No. 14 submitted that M/s, Merchem Limited(applicant herein), Edayar Aluva is an assessee on the rolls of this respondent bearing TIN29150247445. The applicant is in arrears of a total amount of ₹ 82,66,54,410/- as tax, penalty and interest. All these arrears were duly communicated to the assessee as and when they are generated. It is further contended that the application of the applicant company is not maintainable under law, since the Resolution Plan approved as per Order dated 23.01.2019 is vitiated for the reason that the Resolution Professional of the assessee company, Mr. Ravindra Beleyur had not effectively discharged his duties as per Section 17 to Section 25 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It is further stated that according to Sec. 17 (2) (d) of I B Code 2016 IRP or RP have the authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovident Fund Act 1952 with code No.KR/KCH/13674 under the jurisdiction of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Kochi. The applicant Company was brought under the purview of the EPF Act with effect from 01.05.1993 and allotted a sub-code KR/KCH/13674A with effect from 01.06.1997, and is therefore required to comply with the Provisions of the EPF Act and Schemes framed thereunder. The applicant M/s Merchem Limited is a chronic defaulter and many Complaints were received from employees of the applicant, for non- compliance of the provisions of the EPF Act from July 2014 onwards. Therefore, the applicant is liable to pay provident fund/pension fund/insurance fund dues to them. 50. The learned counsel appearing for R15 R16 in their counter opposed the applicant s allegation and stated that even though the amount due to the respondents is under the EPF Act, the same are not payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, but are the payments due to Provident Fund, Pension Fund and Insurance Funds of the workmen or employees, which were required to be paid by the applicant. However, the same was not done by the applicant, which are not operational ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 37,56,762/-. In fact, the above claims are statutory dues admitted by the applicant and protected by the order dated 23.01.2018. 55. The applicant company nor the Resolution Professional has at any time intimated/put on notice, the GIDC about the above proceedings. In view of the lack of notice, the GIDC has been deceived into not making its claim before the Resolution Professional. The GIDC believes that the above insolvency proceedings have been maliciously and fraudulently instituted by the company itself in order to deprive its creditors of their dues. The proceedings are therefore malafide and cannot be permitted to be proceeded with its present form. 56. They have denied the contention regarding limitation. The Company Petition was admitted on 15.01.2018 from which date time, the resolution process started running. As the Resolution Process was not completed in time and as by order dated 11.07.2018 the time was extended for a further period of 90 days with effect from 13/07/2018. The time granted lapses on 11.10.2018. As no resolution plan was filed before the permitted time of 11.10.2018, the provisions of Section 33 of the act stands in force. Needless to mention t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ursimran Singh, Director of Downtown Temptations Pvt. Ltd. V. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (2018) SCC online NCLAT 874 iii. Vijay Kumar Choudary and Another V. Educomp Infrastructure School and Others (2019) SCC online NCLAT 1200 iv. Canara Bank V. State of T.N Another (2000) 3 SCC 210 MA/16/KOB/2020 60. This MA has been filed by the Department of Factory boiler and Office of the Inspector of Factories boilers under Section 60 (5) read with Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, who are Respondents in MA/9/KOB/2020. These applicants are also the Operational Creditors of M/s Merchem Limited. They prayed for the following reliefs: i. Declare that the Committee of Creditors and the appointment of the Insolvency Professional appointed under the above proceedings have become time barred and Fanctus-officio and the plan submitted by them is barred under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. ii. Pass an order requiring the 1st respondent Corporate Debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Section 33 in Chapter III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016. iii. Declare that the order dated 23.01.2019 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 60 (5) under Section 60 (5) read with Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (who is Respondent No.12 in MA/9/KOB/2020) seeking the following reliefs: i. Declare that the Committee of Creditors and the appointment of the Insolvency Professional appointed under the above proceedings have become time barred and Fanctus-officio and the plan submitted by them is barred under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. ii. Pass an order requiring the 1st respondent Corporate Debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Section 33 in Chapter III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016. iii. Declare that the order dated 23.01.2019 in MA/515/2018 in CP/698/IB/2017 is non-est and not binding on the petitioners. 66. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the statutory authority under the State of Kerala. The applicant found that the Corporate Debtor company encroached 52.500 cents of puramboke land in Survey No. 185/16 of Eloor Village, and erected structures over the same. The Tahasildar, Paravoor Taluk initiated steps against the Corporate Debtor in accordance with the provision of KLC Act, 1957 and imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that the statutory dues are admitted and protected by the order dated 23.01.2019 but respondent filed MA/9/KOB/2020 to write off the whole claims. Hence, among other prayers, the applicant sought to liquidate the Corporate Debtor under Section 33 of the Code, so that they can approach the liquidator for getting their dues. COMMON COUNTER FILED BY THE CORPORATE DEBTOR in M.A/ 12 of 2020, MA/16 of 2020, MA/17 of 2020, MA/18 of 2020 and MA/19 of 2020. 69. The respondent/ Corporate Debtor has filed reply in all the aforesaid M.As taking the common contentions as under: 70. The Applicants in these M.As have sought to set aside the Order approving the Resolution Plan dated 23.01.2020, notwithstanding the fact that the same has been upheld both by the Hon'ble NCLAT and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. It is further stated that a Resolution Plan once approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 30 of the Code, can only be assailed in Appeal under Sections 61 or Section 62 for the grounds enumerated therein, before the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ) or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respectively. 71. They have further s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The applicants herein having failed in their statutory duties to file claims on time, now cannot plead ignorance of law or that they had no notice or the proceedings would not bind them. The non-filing of claim by the Applicants in time constitutes laches on their part and would operate to extinguish the debts due-if any and the claim thereof therefore, abates in accordance with the approved Resolution Plan. 75. It is further stated that this Bench did not grant relief under Clause 8.4 as the Operational Creditors were fully covered under Part D, E and F of the Resolution Plan. Clause 8.4 was superfluous and hence this Tribunal discarded it. Non grant of Clause 8.4 does not mean that the Statutory Creditors are entitled to recover in full. Operational Creditors, to which the Respondents belong to, are dealt with under Part D, E and F and they are entitled to payments only under that clause read with Para 8.1 vide Resolution Plan Clause P which reads as under: Clause P: ..Other than those explicitly covered under this Resolution Plan, no other person shall be eligible to receive any amounts from the Corporate Debtor either on account of unverified claims, legal proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproval of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, the claims made by the creditors can be entertained? In such an event the remedies available has been enumerated under Section 31 (1) of the Code, which reads thus: - If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors under Sub-Section (4) of Section 30 meets the requirements as referred to in sub-Section (2) of Section 30, it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, [including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed,] guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan. The above-said section didn t include the phrase including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed from the initiation of the Code. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with undecided claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, the NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count. 85. From a careful reading of the above decision, it is clear that a Successful Resolution Applicant is not to be burdened with undecided claims at the stage of implementation of the Resolution Plan. The Successful Resolution Applicant is to be provided with a company free from past ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laws, are OCs. 88. In Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. Anr. vs. Union of India Ors.─ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 of 2018 , the Hon ble Supreme Court while dealing with the different provisions of the I B Code , including Section 5(20), observed as follows: 23. A perusal of the definition of financial creditor and financial debt makes it clear that a financial debt is a debt together with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for time value of money. It may further be money that is borrowed or raised in any of the manners prescribed in Section 5(8) or otherwise, as Section 5(8) is an inclusive definition. On the other hand, an operational debt would include a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services, including employment, or a debt in respect of payment of goods or services, including employment, or a debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law and payable to the Government or any local authority. 89. From a plain reading of Sub-Section (21) of Section 5, this Tribunal finds that there is no ambiguity in the said provision and the legislature has not used the word and but chose the word or between goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been held that the Adjudicating Authority is not required to go into the merits or reasoning of the decision taken by the COC for approval or rejection of a Resolution Plan. The only benchmark which is set up to be determined by the Adjudicating Authority is to see whether the plan has been approved by 75% voting of the COC or not? Therefore, it is clear that the commercial wisdom of CoC is not allowed to be interfered with. The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced herein below: As aforesaid, upon receipt of a rejected resolution plan the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is not expected to do anything more; but is obligated to initiate liquidation process under Section 33(1) of the I B Code. The legislature has not endowed the adjudicating authority (NCLT) with the jurisdiction or authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial decision of the CoC much less to enquire into the justness of the rejection of the resolution plan by the dissenting financial creditors. From the legislative history and the background in which the I B Code has been enacted, it is noticed that a completely new approach has been adopted for speeding up the recovery of the debt due from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 31 of the Code, the approved Resolution Plan has been made binding on the Corporate Debtor, its employees, members and all creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force is owed. With regard to the concessions sought by the Resolution Applicant, it is seen that the NCLT, Chennai Bench has approved Paragraph 8.1 P amongst the Other Terms and Conditions in the Resolution Plan, which reads as under: P. To settle all legal proceedings and other contingent liabilities, irrevocably and unconditionally other than those explicitly covered in the Resolution Plan, no other person shall be eligible to receive any amount from the Corporate Debtor, either on account of unverified claims, legal proceedings, etc. 95. Based on the terms of the approved Resolution Plan, it is clear that the Operational Creditors have no right against the acquiring Company relating to the period, before the Effective Date. The Acquiring Company shall not have any liability towards Operational Creditors for the amounts owed prior to the Effective Date. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority, in T. R. Ravichandran, RP Vs. The Asst. Commissioner (ST and 12 Ors) [MA 1298/2019 in IBA/130/2019], held that being an operational creditor, the tax authorities are at liberty to make their claims before the Resolution Professional (RP) instead of insisting upon him to pay the pre-admission dues before accepting the tax liabilities arising during the CIRP period. ii. In State of Haryana Vs. Uttam Strips Ltd. (supra), the NCLAT observed that the approved Resolution Plan is binding on all the stakeholders; therefore, the appellant must abide by the terms of the approved Resolution Plan. In Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [DB Civil Writ Petition No. 9480/2019], it is observed that after implementation of Resolution Plan, the Central Goods and Services Tax Department issued demand notices to the corporate debtor (CD) on the ground that the RP / CoC did not pay entire dues of the Department as claimed in the resolution process and they were not heard at the time of approval of resolution plan. The Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan set aside the notices issued by the Department as illegal, stating that the fresh demand notices are illegal and arbit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
