2019 (12) TMI 1445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assets Stabilization Fund' (Financial Creditor) against the order dated 27th September, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata. Number of applications preferred under Section 60(5) of 'the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' (for short, 'the I&B Code') have been disposed of including the application preferred by the Appellant and 'resolution plan' submitted by 'Fort Gloster Industries Limited' has been approved. The 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' was initiated against 'Fort Gloster Industries Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor). In the insolvency process, the resolution plan submitted by the 'Gloster Limited' (resolution ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al, Mumbai Bench in 'Charu Desai, Axis Bank v. Formation Textiles LLC' [CP (IB) 1399 (MB)/2017, dated 30-11-2018] applies but chooses to overlook the said judgment without reasons. The Adjudicating Authority admits that the 'I&B Code' is silent on the aspect of the First Charge of the 'Financial Creditors and others. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the plan allows to ignore mandate of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which will apply by virtue of section 30(2) of the I&B Code, thereby allowing for a preference to be granted to the First Charge holder over the security of others. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 'Resolution Professional' submitted that the Appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It was submitted by the Resolution Professional that the Appellant claiming to be the assignee of IDBI Bank and the Adjudicating Authority has noticed that the searches made in the website of the Registrar of Companies do not reveal that any so called First Charge of the IDBI Bank or the appellant has not shown any document of the First Charge in favour of the IDBI and, therefore, cannot seek preferential treatment amongst other similarly situated 'secured creditors'. 9. It was further submitted that the Appellant dissented in the meeting of the 'Committee of Creditors' and because of dissent cannot claim preferential treatment than the other 'secured creditors'. 10. Similar plea has been taken by the 5th Respond....