9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in India Resurgence Arc. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Amit Metaliks Ltd. Anr.[ 2021 (6) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT ] The above judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court is fully attracted in the facts of the present case and we do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the Application relying on the above judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court. There is no merit in the Appeal. - Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 665 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2022 - <!--[if gte mso 9]> incometax tribunal 14.00 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial) and [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Mr. Kamal Satija, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Advocates ORDER Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chandigarh Bench, by which order the Application I.A No. 333 of 2021 filed by the Appellant- a Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor seeking following two directions has been rejected:- i. To direct respondent No.1 to distribute an amount of Rs.17.26 Crores under the Resolution Plan Amount to the applicant as per option No.3 i.e. if CDR was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n amount if CDR package was assumed to have not been implemented; and 4) Plan amount if CDR package was assumed to have been implemented. 4. The objection was raised by the Appellant Bank and it wanted that distribution should be done as per the Option-3. The CoC by majority having taken decision to distribute the amount as per Option-1 by 97.61% vote, we see no reason to take a different view from one which has been taken by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 40 has made following observations:- 40. Both these contentions of learned counsel for the applicant are not tenable because the distribution of the amount was made by the Committee of Creditors resting on total dues of voting share of indiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
