9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the erstwhile Company- M/s Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. "erstwhile Company" for short as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 "the Code" for short. After the Insolvency process was initiated, the Interim Resolution Professional "IRP" for short was appointed as per the Code, and it was determined that the total debt upon the erstwhile Company was much more than its liquidation value. As per the regulations, an advertisement inviting claims against the erstwhile Company, which were to be submitted to the IRP was issued on 27th July 2017 and the last date for submission of the claim was 7th August 2017. After the claims process was over, the announcement for submission of Resolution Plans by companies was issued. The Petitioner Company was declared as the Successful Resolution Applicant "SRA" for short after voting by the Committee of Creditors "CoC" for short, and the Resolution Plan was submitted on 12th December 2017. The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench "NCLT" or "Adjudicating Authority" for short, approved the Resolution Plan vide order dated 24th July 2018 and pursuant to the same, the management of the erstwhile Company was taken over by the Petitioner Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1177 of 2020 seeking clarification of directions given in paragraph 95 of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra). The same was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file a Contempt Petition by an order dated 2nd May 2022. 3.6. On 13th May 2022, the Petitioner Company issued a letter to the alleged Contemnor No. 1- Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Raipur-II, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, informing him about the order of this Court dated 2nd May 2022 and requesting him that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) be adhered to, and any failure to do the same would result in the Petitioner Company initiating contempt proceedings. 3.7. It appears that, in spite of the aforesaid letter by the Petitioner Company, the alleged Contemnor No. 1 went ahead and issued a demand notice dated 17th May 2022 wherein it was stated that since no one had appeared representing the Petitioner Company to get the tax assessment done, an ex parte decision must be taken. The decision resulted in three separate demands under the relevant provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Chhattisgarh Val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Code, all claims not included in the Resolution Plan are deemed to be frozen and binding on all the stakeholders. It is submitted that this Court has in unequivocal terms clarified that the word "other stakeholders" as mentioned in Section 31(1) of the Code also includes Central, State and any other local authority. 9. It is further submitted that though the Petitioner Company had informed the contemnors/respondents about the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) and specifically informed about the order passed in the aforesaid judgment specifically with regard to the Petitioner Company, the contemnors have chosen to proceed further with the recovery proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that their act amounts to willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. 10. Mr. Gopal Jain further submitted that despite a public announcement, the respondents/contemnors failed to file the claim during the resolution process. The demand raised by the contemnors were belated and raised after the approval of the Resolution Plan. It is submitted that the provisions of the Code are clear inasmuch as, after the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 59 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1177 of 2022 which is rejected by this Court. As such, the present Contempt Petition is not at all tenable. 14. The legal position is no more res integra. This Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) has considered a batch of petitions. The questions which fell for consideration before the Court were as under: "(i) As to whether any creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is bound by the Resolution Plan once it is approved by an adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'I&B Code')? (ii) As to whether the amendment to Section 31 by Section 7 of Act 26 of 2019 is clarificatory/declaratory or substantive in nature? (iii) As to whether after approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority a creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is entitled to initiate any proceedings for recovery of any of the dues from the Corporate Debtor, which are not a part of the Resolution Plan approved by the adjudicating authority?" 15. Though the judgment is titled as " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, or any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued. 18. Insofar as the present Petitioner is concerned, the Court considered its case in Paragraphs 133 to 140. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 140, which reads as under: "140. We hold and declare, that the respondents are not entitled to recover any claims or claim any debts owed to them from the Corporate Debtor accruing prior to the transfer date. Needless to state, that the consequences thereof shall follow." 19. In the said Writ Petition (No.1177 of 2020), after the completion of CIRP on 5th January 2019, the respondent No.2 therein had sent a reminder to the Petitioner Company calling upon it to pay an amount of Rs.4,49,34,917.00 towards the service tax, etc. for the period between 1st April 2016 to 30th June 2017. In spite of the provisions of the Code pointed out by the Petitioner Company in reply to the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal 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 would 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, NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count." [Emphasis supplied] 24. It can thus clearly be seen that this Court has held that 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 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case. 29. In the said case, in response to the advertisement issued by the RP, the State Tax Officer raised its claim before the RP. The claim of the State Tax Officer was rejected by the Committee of Creditors "CoC" for short. The learned NCLT also rejected the claim of the State Tax Officer and an appeal thereagainst also came to be dismissed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal "NCLAT" for short. Aggrieved thereby the State Tax Officer approached this Court. 30. This Court held that when a grievance was made before the Adjudicating Authority with regard to the Resolution Plan, the Adjudicating Authority was required to examine if the Resolution Plan met the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code. This Court also held that under Section 31 of the Code, while approving the Resolution Plan as approved by the CoC, the Adjudicating Authority must come to a satisfaction that the Resolution Plan meets the requirements as referred to in subsection (2) of Section 30 of the Code. It has further been held by this Court that the condition precedent for approval of a Resolution Plan was that it should meet the requirements of subsection (2) of Section 30 of the Code. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
