Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ravindra Kumar Goyal Vs Jatin Prakash Gupta (NCLT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : ITEM No.151 IA No. 680 (AHM)2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/08/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : NCLT
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ravindra Kumar Goyal Vs Jatin Prakash Gupta (NCLT Ahmedabad)

Conclusion: The Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant  could not be approved as it had 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 and 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.

Held: In the instant case, it was seen from the materials on record that there were four Operational Creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Applicant proposed to pay dues of only two of them. There was no reason assigned in the resolution plan as to why other two Operational Creditors were not paid anything. Such resolution plan could not be approved. It was in breach of two provisions of law i.e sequence of priority in payment of the dues to the stakeholders as stated under Section 53 of IBC and also it did not comply mandatory requirement under Regulation 38 and more particularly Regulation 38(1)A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation,2016, which stated that “ A resolution plan shall include a statement as to how it has dealt with the interests of all stakeholders, including financial creditors and operational creditors, of the corporate debtor.” As it did not effectively deal with the interests of all stakeholders of the company, this resolution plan did not comply with Sections 30(2)(e) and Section 30(2)(f) of IBC, hence, such plan cold not be approved.  The Resolution plan of M/s. Akashganga Processor Pvt. Ltd. for the Corporate Debtor-M/s. Polycoat India Pvt. Ltd. submitted for our approval was rejected for the reason that it did not comply with the provision of Section 30(2)(e) & Section 30(2)(f) of the IBC.

FULL TEXT OF THE NCLT AHMEDABAD ORDER

1. IA 680 of 2021 is filed by the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor-M/s. Polycoat India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 30(6) of IBC for approval of the resolution plan submitted by M/s. Akashganga Processor Private Limited.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031