NCLT Ahmedabad Rejects Resolution Plan Selectively Favoured Creditors

The National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Shri Madan B Gosavi (Judicial Member) and Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Technical Member), while adjudicating a petition filed in M/s. Sansar Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. v M/s. Polycoat India Pvt. Ltd., has declined to approve the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant that breached the waterfall mechanism of payments as given under Section 53 of IBC and selectively favoured certain creditors without according any reason for the same. The Bench held that the Plan ineffectively dealt with the interests of all stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and was non-compliant of Section 30(2)(e) and Section 30(2)(f) of IBC. Background Facts M/s. Sansar Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. ("Applicant/Financial Creditor") had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC"), seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against M/s. Polycoat India Pvt. Ltd. ("Corporate Debtor"). The petition was admitted and CIRP was initiated on 02.12.2020. The Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP" ) had received claims from six Financial Creditors and four Operational Creditors. The Financial Creditors were Punjab National Bank, M/s. Sansar Texturisers Pvt. Ltd., Sunil Textile, Anamika Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Gupta Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd., Sharp Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. While the Operational Creditors were State Tax (Government of Gujarat), Central Excise (Government of India), Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation. The IRP constituted the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") which comprised of Punjab National Bank having 99.84% voting shares and the Applicant having 0.16% voting shares. Other four Financial Creditors were excluded for being related party of the Corporate Debtor. CoC in its meeting dated 06.08.2021 had approved the resolution plan submitted by M/s. Akashganga Processor Pvt. Ltd. ("Successful Resolution Applicant/SRA") with 99.84% voting share and the Applicant had dissented from the Plan. Subsequently, the Resolution Professional had filed an application before the NCLT under Section 30(6) of IBC for approval of the Plan. Simultaneously, the Applicant filed an application before NCLT opposing the approved Resolution Plan. Relevant Law Section 30(2) of IBC Section 30. Submission of resolution plan. – xxxx 30(2). The resolution professional shall examine each resolution plan received by him to confirm that each resolution plan – (a) provides for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a manner specified by the Board in priority to the 4 [payment] of other debts of the corporate debtor; (b) provides for the payment of debts of operational creditors in such manner as may be specified by the Board which shall not be less than-xxxx (c) provides for the management of the affairs of the Corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan; (d) the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan; (e) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force (f) conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board. Decision Of The NCLT The Bench analyzed the Resolution Plan to see if its compliant of Section 30(2) of IBC r.w. Regulation 38 IBBI (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Bench held that the Plan was compliant of Section 30(2)(a) of the IBC. Further, out of four Operational Creditors only two are paid in full i.e Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC), Surat Municipal Corporation. For the remaining two Operational Creditors i.e State Tax, (Government of Gujarat), Central Excise, (Government of India), the resolution plan had no provision to pay their dues. Punjab National Bank being the Financial Creditor which approved the resolution plan, was being paid Rs. 7,52,00,000/- out of its total admitted claim of Rs. 111,29,36,166/-. Whereas, the Applicant being dissenting creditor, was offered only 1% of its debt, i.e. Rs. 18,012/- against a claim of Rs. 18,01,219/-. The total amount earmarked in the Resolution Plan for stakeholders was Rs.7,85,00,000/-, out of which 95% amount was paid to Punjab National Bank alone, leaving balance of Rs. 33,00,000/- approximately for payment to other stakeholders. Moreover, Rs. 32,78,102/- was earmarked for to two Operational Creditors i.e G.I.D.C and Surat Municipal Corporation, leaving meager amount of Rs. 18,012/- for payment to the Applicant who is an unsecured financial creditor. "On going through the proposal of payment of dues in the resolution plan, we hold that Resolution Applicant has changed entire payment pattern ignoring the list of priority of payments as stated under Section 53 of IBC." The Bench observed that only two out of four Operational Creditors...

NCLT Ahmedabad Rejects Resolution Plan Selectively Favoured Creditors

Pallavi Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

NCLT Ahmedabad Rejects Resolution Plan Selectively Favoured Creditors

Pallavi Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers