https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312529 The NCLAT overturned the adjudicating authority's refusal to approve a resolution plan that violated Section 30(2)(e) and (f) of the IBC by discriminating between operational creditors. The plan proposed payment to two operational creditors (Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation) while excluding two others (State Tax, Government of Gujarat and Central Excise, Government of India). Following the Supreme Court's precedent in Essar Steel, the NCLAT held that while differential payment between financial and operational creditors is permissible, discrimination within the same class is prohibited. The tribunal modified the plan to distribute Rs.32,78,102 proportionally among all four operational creditors, allowing the resolution plan approved by 99.84% CoC vote share to proceed with implementation. en-us Thu, 13 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Feb 2024 05:57:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312529 The NCLAT overturned the adjudicating authority's refusal to approve a resolution plan that violated Section 30(2)(e) and (f) of the IBC by discriminating between operational creditors. The plan proposed payment to two operational creditors (Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Surat Municipal Corporation) while excluding two others (State Tax, Government of Gujarat and Central Excise, Government of India). Following the Supreme Court's precedent in Essar Steel, the NCLAT held that while differential payment between financial and operational creditors is permissible, discrimination within the same class is prohibited. The tribunal modified the plan to distribute Rs.32,78,102 proportionally among all four operational creditors, allowing the resolution plan approved by 99.84% CoC vote share to proceed with implementation. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 13 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312529