Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY DIRECTLY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN A CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS – TENABLE?

DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN
NCLAT Rules Subsidies Must Be Paid to Corporate Debtor's Account, Not Government Departments, Per Resolution Plan In a corporate insolvency resolution case involving a company and the Directorate of Industries, Government of Maharashtra, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) addressed the issue of subsidy payments. The Directorate had sanctioned subsidies to the corporate debtor, which were requested to be paid to various government departments by the company's erstwhile management. The Adjudicating Authority initially directed these payments, but the NCLAT overruled this, stating that the subsidies should be paid into the corporate debtor's account. The funds should be distributed as per the approved Resolution Plan, allowing the Resolution Professional to proceed legally. (AI Summary)

In ‘Topworth Urja & Metals Limited through its RP Avil Menezes v. Directorate of Industries, Government of Maharashtra’ - 2024 (9) TMI 248 – NCLAT, New Delhi Branch, corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against the Corporate Debtor. The same was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority on 12.08.2022. The Directorate of Industries, Government of Maharashtra granted subsidy to the corporate debtor as detailed below-

  • 2017 – 18- Rs. 15.25 crore (90% of subsidy)
  • 2018 - 19 – Rs. 24.17 crore (75% of subsidy)
  • 2019 – 20 – Rs. 22.34 crore (75% of subsidy)

All the above three subsidies were sanctioned by the Directorate on 27.12.2021.

The Corporate Debtor, vide its letter dated 28.02.2022 requested the Directorate to release the above said amount and also advised to pay the said amount to the following departments as indicated against each department-

  • District Mining Officer – Rs. 32.93 crore
  • GST department – Rs. 22 crore
  • Sales Tax Department – Rs. 1.24 crore;
  • Provident Fund Department – Rs. 1.61 crore;
  • Income Tax Department (TDS) – Rs. 1.99 crore;
  • District Mining Officer – Rs. 7.04 crore.

The Resolution Professional filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority praying for release of the subsidy amount to the tune of Rs.61.76 crore sanctioned by the respondent by way of subsidy for the mega project of the corporate debtor. The Adjudicating Authority issued notices to the Department. But there was no reply from the respondent and they did not represent before the Adjudicating Authority.

The Adjudicating Authority directed the respondent, in reference to the letter of the Corporate Debtor to the respondent, to pay the said amount to the various departments stated above within 30 days of the order on 07.03.2024.

The Resolution Professional filed an appeal against the said order of Adjudicating Authority before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench. The appellant contended that the that the letter relied by the Adjudicating Authority is written by erstwhile management and after initiation of the CIRP. Therefore, the said amount has to be paid to the Corporate Debtor and the claims of all authorities have to be satisfied as per the Resolution Plan which has already been approved by the Committee of Creditors. The said Government authorities, to whom the subsidy amount has been directed to pay by the Adjudicating Authority, have filed their claims.

In the present appeal also, the respondent did not appear before the Appellate Tribunal and did not file reply to the notice. The Appellate Tribunal observed that CIRP was initiated on 12.08.2022. The erstwhile management of the corporate debtor has written the letter dated 28.02.2022 requesting the respondent to pay the dues of the corporate debtor to the various department as sited above by subsidy grant. The said letter was written after the initiation of CIRP. The NCLAT observed that all amount which is payable to the Corporate Debtor has to be given in the kitty of the Corporate Debtor and disbursement of the amount has to take place as per the Resolution Plan which has been approved by the CoC as submitted by the Counsel for the Appellant.

The NCLAT partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the order of Adjudicating Authority directing the Principal Secretary, Directorate of Industries, Government of Maharashtra, to pay the amount of investment subsidy within 30 days in accordance with the disbursal advice to the Government Authorities. The NCLAT directed to pay the said amount into the Corporate Debtor account. It would be open for the Resolution Professional to take such further steps as may be required in accordance with law.

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles