9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here claim were not admitted in totality - When the resolution Plan is approved with ₹ 70,00,000/- out of ₹ 87,39,196/- of Applicants claim, now at this juncture it can t be reverse by virtue of Section 32A of the IBC, there could be no question as to the successful Resolution Applicant, being saddled with the outstanding dues. Section 32A is retrospective in operation. The accepting and modifying terms and conditions laid down in the Resolution Plan fall within the domain of commercial wisdom of the CoC and this Adjudicating Authority is not expected to substitute its view in such Resolution plan approved by the CoC. Hence such prayer cannot be allowed and is rejected. Application rejected. - MA No. 447/2020 IN CP No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btor was placed under CIRP vide order dated 01.01.2018, on an Application filed u/s - 7 of the IBC by Karad Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd by the Financial Creditor and Mr. Kiran Gopal Kunte was appointed as IRP on the same day. By an Order dated August 1, 2019 in M.A. No. 662 of 2019, the Resolution Plan submitted by the Respondent No.2 was ratified. Therefore, this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the present Application. Particulars of the Respondent: 3. The Respondent No.1 is the Successful Resolution Applicant who is now seized of the management of the Respondent No.2 Company/Corporate Debtor. The Respondent No.1 has retained all the employees of the Corporate Debtor by its Resolution Plan. 4. The Respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors during its meeting held on February 9, 2019. Pursuant to the same, the said Resolution Plan was ratified by this Tribunal vide its Order dated August 1, 2019. It is pertinent to note that the Order dated August 1, 2019 passed by this Tribunal, specifically refers to the retention of the existing employees at Point 7(h) of the said Order. The relevant extract is reproduced herein for ready reference. h. Retention of the Existing Employees The Company shall continue with the existing manpower. Employee head count can be increased or reduced based on the Operational performance and growth of the Company. Key members of the current management, if any (excluding promoters/erstwhile directors) shall be retained for a period of at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appointment of M/s 7 Circles Business Advisors LLP, the Respondent No. 4 as the Monitoring Agency whose role was to start immediately after the Effective Date, i.e. the date of the Order of approval of the Resolution Plan, being August 1, 2019. However, it is blatantly evident that the Respondent No. 4 has grossly failed to ensure the proper implementation of the Resolution Plan. 14. In the Present case contention of Applicant is that Total outstanding to the tune of ₹ 87,39,196/- (Rupees Eighty-Seven Lakhs Thirty-Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Six Only) were not admitted, instead only ₹ 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only) were admitted. Applicant also plead that they were not aware about this fact that there claim we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2019 held that an amendment took place in Section 32A of the IBC, 2016 is retrospective. Relevant portion of the said Judgements is reproduced here below: 87. We have no hesitation to say, that the word other Stakeholders would squarely cover the Central Government, any State Government or any local authorities. The legislature, noticing that on account of obvious omissions, certain tax authorities were not abiding by the mandate of IB Code and continuing with the proceedings, has brought out the 2019 amendment so as to cure the said mischief. We therefore, hold that the 2019 amendment is declaratory and clarificatory in nature and therefore retrospective in operation. 15. Another prayer seeking to direct to make payment of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
