TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TB/2019 and 176/CTB/2019 connected with TP No. 42/CTB/2019. Brief Facts: 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short is as follows:- (a) the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") was initiated against the corporate entity M/s Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (FACOR) at the instance of 'Rural Electrification Corporation Limited ("RECL") by way of an application under Section 7 of IBC against Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited ("FACL")- Corporate Debtor. (b) While granting the said facility, a Corporate Guarantee agreement was executed by FACL was in favour of REC and shares were also pledged by Corporate Debtor and Corporate Guarantor in favour of REC. (c) Later, the Corporate Debtor defaulted in making payment and its account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the Financial Creditor and thereafter, the Financial Creditor also invoked the Corporate Guarantee and called upon FACL to repay the outstanding amount. (d) The Application filed by REC against the Corporate Guarantor under Section 7 of IBC was admitted by Hon'ble NCLT and was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP") who was subsequently confirmed as the Resolution Professional by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of the Respondent- RP to rectify the classification against the objections made in the meeting were neither reflected in the minutes nor complied. Appellant's Submissions: 3. Further, during the course of the arguments Appellant submitted that the RP has deliberately excluded Departmental Claims under some pretext or another and has finally admitted the claims as late as on 11.11.2019 by which date the Resolution Plan was considered. 4. It was further submitted during course of the arguments that there is a delay in admitting the claims as late as on 11.11.2019-12.11.2019. Perused the claims of the Department and the same has jeopardized during the CIRP Process. 5. Consequently, huge statutory dues running to the tune of Rs. 353.61 Crores of the Dept submitted and out of which the belatedly admitted claim of Rs. 220.58 Crores was never factored in by the Resolution Applicant while preparing the Resolution Plan. 6. It was submitted that the information memorandum which was prepared for the potential resolution applicants was materially defective and incomplete chiefly owing to such delayed admittance of claims and wrongful categorization the claims by the RP. 7. Further, c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, portions of the amounts claimed which were not even payable as on the ICD were rightly rejected by the Resolution Professional. 14. Respectfully, immediately upon receiving the claim from the Appellant on 18 September 2019, the Resolution Professional immediately acknowledged the same on 26 September 2019. It is pertinent to highlight that the Appellant itself was significantly delayed in filing its claim, having filed the claim for the first time more than 2 years after the ICD. Thereafter, the Resolution Professional initiated the process of claim verification, however since the claim of the Appellant was based upon various show cause notices, demand notices and orders issued over a period of time, it was a time consuming process to collate the said information and verify the amount claimed by the Appellant from the records of the Corporate Debtor. 15. Accordingly, the Resolution Professional based on the preliminary assessment admitted an amount of Rs. 238.56 Crores on 3 October 2019 and kept the remaining amount of Rs. 110 crores under review and it was duly disclosed on the website of the Corporate Debtor. It is pertinent to mention that the GST Authority on 17 October ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the members of the COC within two weeks of the appointment of the Resolution Professional and to each prospective resolution applicant latest by the date of invitation of resolution plan under clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Code. Accordingly, Mr. K G Somani, the Erstwhile Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, prepared the information memorandum. 21. Thereafter, when the Respondent No. 1 was appointed vide Order dated 8 July 2019, initially only 30 days' time period i.e. till 7 August 2019 was provided by the NCLT to conduct the CIR Process, for which neither was the Respondent No. 1 was required to nor had sufficient time to prepare a fresh information memorandum and relied upon the one prepared by Mr. Somani. However, the Respondent No. 1 proactively invited fresh clams and updated the list of creditors accordingly. 22. Further, as stated above as well in the context of the Appellant, all such information pertaining to new claims received or updation in the existing claims received was duly disclosed on the website of the Corporate Debtor and updated list of creditors was regularly uploaded thereof. The said information was also consistently....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y (National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench), whereby, the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditor and the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal. 29. The Resolution Plan was approved by 95.15 % of voting share in 31st Committee of Creditors Meeting dated 13.11.2019. Thus, as per the requirement of Section 30(2)(b) of the Code, the operational creditors of the Corporate Debtor including the Appellant herein, are entitled to a minimum payment of their liquidation value which is Nil in the present case, and therefore the resolution plan of SPTL which proposes NIL payments towards the claims of operational creditors, cannot be called in question on the ground that it contravenes provisions of Section 30(2) of the Code. 30. Taking this fact and also Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors." Reported in MANU/SC/0273/2021, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:- "95. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: (i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority Under Sub-section (1)....