AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat Advocates., Mr. Jitendra Malkan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. T.Ravichandran with Mr. K.V.Balakrishnan, Advocate, Mr. P.V.Dinesh Advocate for SBI. Mr. NPS Chawla and Mr.Suresh K Baxy, Advocate JUDGMENT PER : DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, TECHNICAL MEMBER These Appeals have been filed under Section 32 and 61(3) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('for short I&B Code, 2016') to set aside the impugned order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench ('Adjudicating Authority') in MA/515/2018 in CP/689/IB/2017 dated 23.01.2019. The Adjudicating Authority vide above stated Miscellaneous Application has approved the Resolution Plan and has made it effective from the date of passing of order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess (for short CIRP). c) However, the Respondent No.1 in this Appeal i.e. the Resolution Professional has submitted that the Appellant had resigned much before the commencement of CIRP and has left the services of Corporate Debtor on 19.09.2017 while CIRP has been initiated on 15.01.2018. Resolution Professional has also stated that there is a collusion between the Appellant and the Promoter. He has also stated that he is the person being ex-employee of the Corporate Debtor has triggered the CIRP, Corporate Debtor does not appear before the Adjudicating Authority and the petition proceeded ex-parte and gets admitted on 15.01.2018. d) Resolution Professional has also submitted that the Resolution Plan is inconsonan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e owner of the Corporate Debtor's factory, he has entered into a Licence Agreement with Corporate Debtor on 01.10.2011 and the Corporate Debtor has agreed to pay a sum of Rupees towards licence fee payable either a lump sum or such other instalments being Rs. 16,50,000/- towards building and Rs. 38,58,000/- towards plant and machinery. He is aggrieved that the Licence fee for the CIRP period forms part of IRP costs and should have been paid in full while this has not been considered and similarly the financial debt has not been paid. The Appellant is insisting that the Resolution Applicant has handed over the building and other apartments only on 17.06.2019 and his dues of Rs. 82,65,000/- along with additional 5 months licence fee at the ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ues over Rs. 2.65 crores towards his salary and unsecured loan of over Rs. 16 Crores. He was both Financial Creditor and Operational Creditor. He has also stated that he has the reservations over the viability and feasibility of Resolution Plan approved. a)He has also stated that the Resolution Applicant has sought several concession and exemption like allowing setting up off of brought forwarded losses and unabsorbed depreciation for computation of Taxable Profits as per Income Tax Act, 1961, directing to provide reasonable opportunity to the jurisdiction principal Commissioner of Income tax for allowing this set off and also claiming certain other benefits apart from exemption under Stamp Duty Act, waival by the Gujarat Government/ Guj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.115 of 2019 stands disposed of. Issue Notice Mr. K.V.Balakrishnan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the 1st Respondent - (Resolution Professional). Mr. R.S.Lakshman, advocate accepts on behalf of 2nd Respondent. No further notice need be issued to them. They may file reply along with vakalatnama within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by the Appellants within two weeks thereof. Let notice be issued on rest of the Respondents by speed post. Requisite along with process fee, if not filed, be filed by 1st April, 2019. If the Appellant provides the e-mail address of the rest of the Respondents, let notice be also issued through e-mail. Post the case 'for admission' on 3rd May, 2019. In the meanti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Rs. 84,30,487 /-. He is talking about the discrimination between operational creditors and financial creditors and has stated that out of dues of over Rs. 84,00,000/- he is getting Rs. 34,862/-. He has also stated that he is a fabrication contractors and not getting at least a reasonable amounts, his business is also in a bad shape. (a)While the Resolution Applicant has submitted that the Appellant is sole proprietorship concern and is not being eligible under Section 61 of the IBC, 2016 to Appeal. He has also stated that the instant appeal has been filed on 16.05.2019 after implementation of the Resolution Plan by 18.03.2019. He has also raised an issue that whatever amount he has got at that time he has not protested. In any case Sec....