TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hanya Dheekshitha KH, Advocate For Mr. Ramaswamy Meyyappan, Advocate for R5 & R6 JUDGMENT [Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)] The proceeding that were held in IA No. 703/2019, which was preferred in CP (IB) No. 275/7HDB/2018, being the proceedings, which were instituted under Section 30(6) and 31 of IBC 2016, to be read with Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, before the Ld. NCLT and the same has been affirmed with the approval of the Resolution Plan, by an order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on the said application. 2. The facts are that, Respondent No. 2, is the Financial Creditor, as well as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Apex Court. It is because of the aforesaid reason, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority passed an order directing the Resolution Profession to treat the claim of the Appellant, as 'ordinary claim', after considering it on merits, instead of treating it as a contingent claim, as it was actually claimed by the Appellant. 5. The Appellant's case is that, in the meeting of the CoC held on 25.07.2019, and as per the report of the transaction reviewer, which was submitted along with the Resolution Plan by the Resolution Professional, the voting was conducted based upon the report, obtained by electronic means and the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC with the voting majority of 75.91% of the CoC. And accordingly, the list of creditors ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016. 7. The Appellant/ Operational Creditor herein, aggrieved against the said order, has preferred this company appeal, as against the approved Resolution Plan, as on 17.10.2019. 8. As per the case of the Appellant, he contended that, the orders passed by the Ld. Tribunal would be bad in the eyes of law for the reason being that, the logic which has been assigned by the Ld. Tribunal, while passing the order consequentially approving the Resolution Plan, is contrary to law, hence, also the Appellant herein had filed IA No. 434/2019 wherein, he prayed for to set aside the decision of the Resolution Professional of rejecting the claim of the Applicant (Appellant herein)and further direct the Resolution Professional to admit the claim in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rational and logical reasons and it was argued that, the order dated 17.10.2019, as passed in IA No. 703/2019, deserves to be reconsidered. 10. Primarily, the grievance, which has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant was in the context of the observation, that, were made as regards to the terms of the Resolution Plan, which was considered by the Ld. Tribunal while passing the impugned order, particularly the observation that, was made in para viii (c), where it was observed that, since some of the Operational Creditors have already approached the different legal forums, challenging the rejection of their claim, in the event if some of the rejected claims or the contingent claim could get crystallized after the date of the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contingent claim. And since they are not being admitted by the Debtor, the claim amount, which is fixed by the statute is compulsory and there is no need for admission of a liability of such an amount by the Corporate Debtor. The amount of DMF and GST has already been paid by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 0.63 and Rs. 5.82 respectively, which was not considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority as well as the Interim Resolution Professional at the stage of finalization of the claims, which were pending consideration. 14. Besides that, it was contended that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that the period of 24 months, prescribed in the order for crystallization of claim from the authorities, they were beyond the c....