TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nkar Jha and Mr. Arpit Gupta, Advocates, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gauri Rastogi, Mr. Ronak Dhillon Ms. Sylona Mohapatra, Mr.Karan Khanna and Ms. Ananya Dhar Chaudary, Advocates And Mr. Diwakar Singh, Advocate ORDER This appeal has been preferred by 'Srei Equipment Finance Limited'- ('Financial Creditor') against the order dated 7th November, 2017, whereby and whereunder, the 'Resolution Plan' submitted by Mr. Mahesh Kr. Agarwal has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, on the ground that the 'Resolution Plan' discriminates between two similarly situated 'Financial Creditors'. 2. The appeal was heard on numerous occasions and opportunity was g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ICICI BANK (Class A) 1,530.03 1,147.52 (75%) 382.51 6 SREI (Class B) 10,346.00 5,173.00 (50%) 5,173.00 7 IFCI (Class B) 8,505.00 4,252.50 (50%) 4,252.50 8 KOTAK ARC (Class B) 230.00 115.00 (50%) 115.00 TOTAL 60,731.01 40,778.01 19,953.00 Notes: (1) Interest will be payable to all Financial Creditors on the Settlement amount as per the approved Resolution Plan. 6.1 The settlement amounts payable under the revised Resolution Plan as proposed are as follows: PAYMENTS TO FI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtionately, i.e., approximately one year." 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant- 'Srei Equipment Finance Limited' submitted that the amount as shown payable to the Appellant under the proposed 'Revised Resolution Plan' is acceptable to the Appellant. 4. Mr. Dinkar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Pegasus', another 'Financial Creditor' submits that the said 'Financial Creditor' having equated with the other 'Financial Creditors' has no objection to the 'Revised Proposed Resolution Plan'. However, objection has been made with regard to Note No.2 below the proposal wherein it is mentioned that the 'M/s. Pegasus' has already received the liquidation value of Rs. 32 lacs and have issued their 'No Due Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Regulations framed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India do not prescribe differential treatment between the similarly situated 'Operational Creditors' or the 'Financial Creditors' on one or other grounds." xxx xxx &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ides liquidation value to the 'Operational Creditor(s)' or liquidation value to the dissenting 'Financial Creditor(s)' in view of clause (b) and (c) of Regulation 38(1), without any other reason to discriminate between two set of creditors similarly situated such as 'Financial Creditors' or the 'Operational Creditors' cannot be approved being illegal." Xxx xxx  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other 'Financial Creditors' were discriminated qua similarly situated 'Financial Creditors' in the 'Resolution Plan' originally submitted by Mr. Mahesh Kr. Agarwal and now the 'Successful Resolution Applicant' with a view to remove the discrimination has proposed 'Revised Resolution Plan'. For the said reason, we accept the 'Revised Resolution Plan' submitted by Mr. Mahesh Kr. Agarwal 'Successful Resolution Applicant' which should be treated to be part of the original 'Resolution Plan' as approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The substitution aforesaid is in part and is in addition to the rest of the proposal as made in the main 'Resolution Plan'. 11. We have noticed that the stand taken by the 3rd Respondent- 'Edelweiss Asset Recon....