Tribunal approves resolution plan with payment priority, investigation, and reporting obligations.

The Tribunal approved the resolution plan under Sections 30(6) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, with specific directions. The dissenting Financial Creditor was to be paid before equity shareholders, and OBC was tasked with investigating transactions highlighted by the RP. The moratorium ceased, records were to be transferred to the Resolution Applicant, and any deviations from the plan were to be reported. All related applications were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Approval of the resolution plan under Section 30(6) and Section 31 read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Claims and objections raised by the Financial Creditor against the resolution plan.
3. Preferential and other transactions under Sections 43, 45, 50, and 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Approval of the Resolution Plan:
The application was filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor for approval of the resolution plan under Section 30(6) and Section 31 read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The process began with the appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) as the sole member having 100% voting share. The CoC approved the resolution plan in its 9th meeting held on 30.01.2019. The salient features of the resolution plan included payments to various creditors, including CIRP costs, operational creditors, secured financial creditors, and unsecured financial creditors. The RP confirmed that the resolution applicant met the eligibility criteria and provided an affidavit confirming their eligibility under Section 29A of the IBC, 2016.

2. Claims and Objections Raised by the Financial Creditor:
The Financial Creditor filed IA No. 57/JPR/2019 and IA No. 58/JPR/2019, expressing grievances that their claim was not admitted in full by the RP. The RP responded that despite repeated requests, no evidence was provided for the agreed rate of interest claimed by the Financial Creditor. The RP justified the non-admission of the interest claim as it was beyond the three-year period under the Limitation Act applicable to IBC, 2016. The Tribunal noted that the related parties being Financial Creditors were categorized and dealt with uniformly in the resolution plan without discrimination, and their objections were dismissed.

3. Preferential and Other Transactions:
The RP filed IA No. 58/JPR/2018, bringing to the notice of the Tribunal about transactions under Sections 43, 45, 50, and 66 of the IBC, 2016. The RP did not press for the application’s disposal seriously, and the CoC, considering commercial wisdom, approved the resolution plan despite the alleged transactions. The Tribunal directed the Monitoring Agency, including OBC, to investigate these transactions and report back within three months. The decision on IA No. 58/JPR/2018 was kept in abeyance pending this investigation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal approved the resolution plan with specific directions:
1. The dissenting Financial Creditor, although a related party, shall be paid the principal amount due before payments to equity shareholders.
2. OBC, as part of the Monitoring Agency, shall investigate the transactions brought forth by the RP.
3. The implementing and supervision authority shall report any deviation from the resolution plan.
4. The moratorium under Section 14 shall cease to have any effect.
5. All records collected by the RP during the CIRP shall be handed over to the Monitoring Agency and subsequently to the Resolution Applicant.

All applications, including IA No. 44/JPR/2019, were disposed of accordingly.

---