Sai Balaji Facility Vs CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary (NCLAT New Delhi)
NCLAT New Delhi held that proposing NIL amount doesn’t result into non-compliance of section 30(2)(b) of IBC. Hence, approval of resolution plan proposing NIL amount to Operational Creditor justified.
Facts- CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 23.06.2023. In pursuance of publication issued by the IRP, Appellant submitted its claim on 19.10.2023 in Form B for dues amounting to Rs.16,77,047/-. Appellant’s claim was duly admitted by the Resolution Professional. In the CIRP, the Resolution Plan was submitted which was approved by the CoC in its 9th meeting with majority of 92.87% vote share. The Resolution Professional filed an application seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority by impugned order dated 02.05.2024 approved the Resolution Plan, aggrieved by which order, this Appeal has been filed.
Conclusion- The statutory protection granted to the operational creditor in Section 30(2)(b) is that they shall not be paid any amount less than as mentioned in (i) and (ii). Appellant case in the Appeal is not that the Appellant was entitled for any payment as per Section 30(2)(b) which has been denied in the Resolution Plan.
The issue raised by the Appellant is fully covered by the recent judgment of this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1063 of 2022- “Rajat Metaal Polychem Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Neeraj Bhatia and Anr.” where this Tribunal while dealing with the similar claim of the operational creditors has held that in the facts of the present case there is any noncompliance of Section 30(2)(b) in proposing NIL amount to the Operational Creditor. It is true that non-payment of any payment of Operational Creditor is harsh but the law as stand today is to that effect.
