TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order remitting the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors and directing consideration of the pending applications warranted interference in the appellants' appeals; (ii) Whether the appellants' pending claims could be directed to be considered before resubmission of the resolution plan.
Issue (i): Whether the impugned order remitting the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors and directing consideration of the pending applications warranted interference in the appellants' appeals.
Analysis: The order under challenge had been passed in the context of applications filed by the statutory authority and in the light of the Supreme Court's directions that the resolution plan did not satisfy the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with the CIRP Regulations. The Tribunal noted that the plan had to be resubmitted and that the applications which had been deferred for consideration were still pending before the Adjudicating Authority. In that situation, the Tribunal declined to enter into the merits of the appellants' grievances or to disturb the order already passed.
Conclusion: No interference was made with the impugned order.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellants' pending claims could be directed to be considered before resubmission of the resolution plan.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the claims had been rejected earlier on the basis of the then-existing approval status of the resolution plan, but the applications seeking admission of those claims were themselves still awaiting adjudication. Since the resolution plan was to be resubmitted and the pending applications had not yet been decided, the Tribunal considered it appropriate that those applications be taken up first and that the resubmission of the plan await their disposal. The Tribunal therefore directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the pending applications expeditiously and required the successful resolution applicant to place the revised plan before the Committee of Creditors only after those directions were addressed.
Conclusion: The appellants were not granted immediate admission of their claims, but the pending claim applications were left for consideration by the Adjudicating Authority before final resubmission of the plan.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of without disturbing the impugned order, while ensuring early adjudication of the pending claim applications before the resolution plan is reconsidered.
Ratio Decidendi: Where claim applications are still pending adjudication and the resolution plan is to be resubmitted pursuant to a remand, the appellate forum may decline interference with the remand order and require the pending applications to be decided before the revised plan is finally placed for consideration.
TaxTMI 
