Appeal dismissed for challenging claim amount post-approval; no unfair discrimination between creditors.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Appellant could not challenge the reduced claim amount after the resolution plan's approval and that the resolution plan did not unfairly discriminate between financial and operational creditors, as it complied with the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellant can raise the issue of admission of reduced amount of his claim at a much belated stage, after the approval of the resolution planRs.
2. Whether the approval of the resolution plan can be challenged on the basis of discrimination between the financial creditors and operational creditors based on payments to be made to them under the approved resolution planRs.

Summary:

Issue 1: Admission of Reduced Claim Amount

The Appellant, an operational creditor, submitted a claim of Rs. 2,53,85,908/- during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor, Vadraj Energy (Guj) Limited. The Resolution Professional (RP) admitted only Rs. 1,13,63,918/- of this claim, citing inadequate proof of verification for the remaining amount and the cessation of services after 30.06.2018. The Appellant did not challenge this reduced admission at the time and only raised the issue after the resolution plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal held that the Appellant's delayed challenge was not permissible, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, which states that no further claims can be considered once a resolution plan is approved.

Issue 2: Discrimination Between Financial and Operational Creditors

The Appellant argued that the resolution plan discriminated against operational creditors by allocating 'NIL' payment to them while financial creditors received more than 18% of their claimed amounts. The Tribunal noted that the resolution plan's allocation was in accordance with Section 30(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which mandates that operational creditors receive at least the liquidation value, which in this case was 'NIL'. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., which upheld the discretion of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in deciding the distribution of payments. The Tribunal found no violation of Section 30(2) or Section 31 of the IBC in the approved resolution plan and dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that:
1. The Appellant could not raise the issue of the reduced claim amount at a belated stage after the resolution plan's approval.
2. The resolution plan did not discriminate unfairly between financial and operational creditors, as it complied with the relevant provisions of the IBC.

---