The Chennai bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal(NCLAT) dismissed the appeal of Resolution Professional (RP) in the absence of irregularities in provisions of the resolution plan under section 30(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC), 2016
Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala, Resolution Professional(RP) who indeed was the applicant who challenged the Impugned Order dated 13/08/2020 passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which allowed the Application preferred by the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor Company, seeking approval of the Resolution Plan of ‘M/s Renganayaki Agencies’.
The Appellant challenged the approval of the Resolution Plan on the ground that the Corporate Debtor owes Rs. 22,60,32,948/- towards default in payment of Central Excise Duty, interest and penalty as per Central Excise Returns filed with the Appellant Department.
As per the Resolution Plan, only 0.13% has been earmarked towards Government dues, the Financial Creditor is getting 44.5% of the Claim amounts and the other Operational Creditors are getting 0.51% of their Claim amounts, which is stated to be unfair.
It was vehemently argued that in view of the attachment on the Property of the Corporate Debtor, the Appellant could fall within the definition of ‘Secured Creditor’. The Plan also noted that the total sum for Resolution Plan is Rs. 4,73,42,602/- and that in the event the Application of the Appellant is rejected under SABHKA VISWA SCHEME, the total Claim would be Rs. 22,60,32,948/-.
The Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant is challenging the approval of the Plan which was already implemented on 08/02/2022 and that an amount of Rs. 68,98,00,000/- was spent by the Successful Resolution Applicant, under the approval of the Plan.
It was viewed that the Adjudicating Authority that the Plan complies with Section 30(2) of the IBC sand Regulations 37, 38, 38(1A) and 39(4) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016.
A two-member bench comprising Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) and Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical) could not find any such irregularity in the Provisions of the Resolution Plan, as specified under Section 30 (2) of the Code.
The Tribunal observed that the Resolution Plan was fully implemented and the Successful Resolution Applicant had made payments amounting to Rs. 35,25,00,000/- to all the Creditors and almost 2 years have passed since the approval of the Resolution Plan.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
