https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313068 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging a resolution plan approval. The appellant, an operational creditor, claimed discrimination in payment distribution under the plan, arguing that while operational creditors with claims up to Rs. 3 lakhs received 100% payment, it was treated unfairly. The NCLAT held that operational creditors were paid according to Section 30(2)(b) of IBC 2016 and Regulation 38 of CIRP Regulations, with Committee of Creditors having discretion in classification and distribution. The tribunal noted the appellant's claim related to arbitration proceedings under a Gas Sale Agreement for take-or-pay obligations, not goods/services for going concern. Finding no material irregularity or patent illegality in the adjudicating authority's order, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. en-us Mon, 04 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:57:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313068 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging a resolution plan approval. The appellant, an operational creditor, claimed discrimination in payment distribution under the plan, arguing that while operational creditors with claims up to Rs. 3 lakhs received 100% payment, it was treated unfairly. The NCLAT held that operational creditors were paid according to Section 30(2)(b) of IBC 2016 and Regulation 38 of CIRP Regulations, with Committee of Creditors having discretion in classification and distribution. The tribunal noted the appellant's claim related to arbitration proceedings under a Gas Sale Agreement for take-or-pay obligations, not goods/services for going concern. Finding no material irregularity or patent illegality in the adjudicating authority's order, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 04 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313068