2021 (8) TMI 1340 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appeals dismissed for not filing claims during CIRP; Resolution Plan approved without provision for dues upheld

The Deputy Commissioner of GST And Central Excise Versus Mr. Vijaykumar V. Iyer Resolution Professional of Dishnet Wireless Limited, UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Resolution Applicant

The Deputy Commissioner of GST And Central Excise Versus Mr. Vijaykumar V. Iyer Resolution Professional of Dishnet Wireless Limited, UV Asset ... Issues:1. Approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority without provision for operational dues of the Appellant.2. Lack of filing of claims by the Department of the Appellant during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling on the binding nature of approved resolution plans on all stakeholders.Issue 1: Approval of Resolution Plan without provision for operational dues:The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise filed an appeal against the Impugned Order approving the Resolution Plan submitted by UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. The Appellant argued that they were not given notice during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and that their dues were not provided for in the Resolution Plan. The Appellant contended that despite records showing dues, the Resolution Plan granted relief against the Appellant's actions. The Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan without considering the Appellant's claims for operational dues, leading to the appeal.Issue 2: Lack of filing of claims during CIRP:The Appellant admitted that they did not file any Resolution Plan during the CIRP due to the Covid-19 situation. By the time the Appellant filed claims for operational dues, the Resolution Plan had already been approved. The Appellant argued that the Resolution Professional did not include their outstanding dues in the Resolution Plan, despite being aware of them. The Appeals highlighted that no claims were submitted by the Appellants until after the Resolution Plan was approved.Issue 3: Interpretation of Supreme Court's ruling on binding nature of approved resolution plans:The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court ruling stating that once a resolution plan is approved, claims provided in the plan become binding on all stakeholders, extinguishing claims not included. The Tribunal concluded that even if the Resolution Plan is challenged and succeeds in other appeals, the Appellants' claims were not filed during CIRP and thus cannot be considered. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant must adhere to the Supreme Court's judgment.In conclusion, the Appeals were declined as the Appellants did not file claims during CIRP, and the Resolution Plan had already been approved without provision for their dues. The Tribunal upheld the binding nature of approved resolution plans as per the Supreme Court's ruling, emphasizing the importance of following judicial decisions.