TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Resolution Plan Approval Upheld Despite Operational Creditor Challenges</h1> <h3>Apna Organics P. Ltd. Versus Alok Industries Ltd.</h3> The Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan submitted by JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Reliance Industries Limited for ... CIRP Proceedings - Raising fresh demand of interest after approval of Resolution Plan - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Though the Applicants have mentioned in their respective applications that CD/RP assured them, payments of past invoices and protection of supplies made during CIRP as per IRP Cost, this Adjudicating Authority do not find any evidence, in the form of any communication, in black and white to prove their contentions. We have also observed that RP vide his e-mail dated 25-10-2018 informed the Applicant that all payments made on or after 18th July, 2017 until today have been against the supplies made by the Applicant since 18th July 2017 and the Applicant would be free to set off their bills against supplies made by the Applicant from 18th July 2017 onwards. It is observed that in spite of receiving this clarification from the RP, the Applicant continued to make supplies as is evident from the Invoices No. AOPL/138/18-19 dated 31-10-2018 onwards. This Adjudicating Authority observes that Petitioners of the aforesaid IAs are the Operational Creditors and they have submitted their claims in response to the public announcement made by the IRP/RP calling for claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor Company against whom the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was ordered by this Adjudicating Authority. In the respective Forms submitted by the Petitioners/Operational Creditors, the Petitioners/Operational Creditors submitted their claims along with the interest. However, the Petitioners/Operational Creditors were informed of their claims admitted by the IRP/RP without interest. Accordingly, the Petitioners/Operational Creditors should have raised their voice and concern at the time when the Resolution Plan in respect of the Corporate Debtor Company was approved by this Adjudicating Authority. Application disposed off. Issues:1. Approval of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority2. Filing of multiple IAs by Operational Creditors post-approval of Resolution PlanIssue 1: Approval of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating AuthorityThe case involved CP(IB) No. 48/2017 filed by State Bank of India as the Financial Creditor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Alok Industries Limited. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the CP(IB) and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Subsequently, a Resolution Plan was jointly submitted by JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Reliance Industries Limited, which was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 72.192% voting in favor. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority, relying on the commercial wisdom of the CoC, as established in the case of K. Sashidhar v. India Overseas Bank. The Resolution Plan approval was on 8-3-2019.Issue 2: Filing of multiple IAs by Operational Creditors post-approval of Resolution PlanAfter the approval of the Resolution Plan, several IAs were filed by Operational Creditors, including IA Nos. 321 to 327 of 2019. These IAs were filed by Operational Creditors who claimed to have supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor before the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Operational Creditors alleged that the Resolution Professional (RP) had assured them payment for pre-CIRP invoices to ensure continuous supply of materials. However, the RP later retracted this commitment, leading to disputes regarding payments and interest under the MSME Act. The Operational Creditors sought various reliefs, including payment for invoices, interest, disciplinary proceedings against the RP, and other appropriate orders.Upon analysis, the Adjudicating Authority observed that the Operational Creditors had previously approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal seeking reliefs related to payment of invoices as CIRP costs, but the Appellate Tribunal directed them to move before the appropriate forum or Court. The Adjudicating Authority found no concrete evidence to support the contentions made by the Operational Creditors regarding assurances of payments by the RP. Furthermore, it was noted that the Operational Creditors did not raise concerns when their claims were admitted without interest by the RP. As the Resolution Plan had already been approved, and the Resolution Professional and CoC discharged, the Adjudicating Authority deemed the subsequent IAs filed by the Operational Creditors as not maintainable and disposed of them.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the approval of the Resolution Plan and the subsequent filing of multiple IAs by Operational Creditors post-approval. It highlighted the importance of raising concerns at the appropriate stage and the limitations faced by Operational Creditors under the insolvency process once a Resolution Plan is approved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
