TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 762
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Resolution Professional [RP]/Respondent No. 2 for approval of the Resolution plan of M/s Solar Voltaic Power LLP (Corporate Debtor)/Respondent No.1. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the resolution plan does not consider the outstanding Income-tax demands and demands which were raised by the Appellant against the corporate debtor for various Assessment Years to the tune of Rs. 3,11,11,442/-. The Appellant asserts he had submitted all the documents through email to the RP on various occasions, but RP failed to consider his claim and without providing any cogent reason has allocated a paltry sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards statutory dues of the appellant. Brief facts of the case 3. The brief facts of the case are as given below: i. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of M/s Solar Voltaic Power LLP (Corporate Debtor)/Respondent No. 1 commenced on 19.09.2023, when the Adjudicating Authority admitted a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter the 'Code') and appointed the Mr. Prashant Agarwal/ Respondent No. 2 as the Interim Resolution Professional, who was later confirmed as RP. ii.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/- of the appellant from the beginning of the CIRP proceedings. Submissions of the Appellant: 4. The submissions of the Appellant are as given below: i. Ld. Counsel submits that the Impugned Order is passed without appreciating proper facts and the same is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. The Impugned order fails to take into account the outstanding dues of Rs. 3,11,11,442/- of the appellant. ii. Ld. Counsel further submits that the impugned order fails to take into account the fact that the appellant had duly submitted its claims before the RP along with all the supporting annexures evidencing the outstanding demand not once, but multiple times, but still the RP had failed to consider the same and rejected the same without providing any cogent reason/basis. iii. He submits that the impugned order fails to take into account the fact that the RP had failed to provide any cogent reason/basis in the resolution plan for allocating a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards statutory dues/government dues. The RP despite being aware of the outstanding dues/claims of the appellant, failed to bring the same before the CoC at the time of finalizing the resolut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the first time vide email dated 30.05.2024 provided the copy of assessment order dated 24.12.2018 for tax demand of Rs. 3,66,00,910/-. vi. Respondent No. 2 submits that the fact regarding pendency of plan approval application was also communicated by the vide email dated 06.06.2024 to the Appellant at which point of time the Appellant had one more opportunity to raise its grievance however, for reasons best known to the Appellant itself, it did not bother to raise the present issue before the Ld. NCLT during the pendency of the plan approval application which remained pending until 11.12.2024. The Appellant remained a silent spectator and therefore, the legal principle ~ that "equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights" squarely applies in the facts of present case. vii. Ld. Counsel submits that without prejudice to the foregoing, it is submitted that out of the total plan value of Rs. 20 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 3 lakh were earmarked for the Operational Creditors, which included Government dues against an admitted claim of Rs. 1,092.61 lakhs, amounting to a haircut of 99.86%. The Operational Creditors thus received approximately 0.14% of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....63(W) OF 2019 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that "The internet allows users to categorize emails, including marking them as spam or regular mail. Users can still check their spam folder to see if any important emails are there. It is the user's responsibility to regularly check both inbox and spam folders. In this case, the petitioner failed to exercise due care by not checking her emails properly during an online application and selection process, where all communication was conducted online." xii. Ld. Counsel further places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of OPUS GROUP AB vs. MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, W.P.(C) No.2999/2013 & CM No. 7146/2013, CM No.6675/2013 & CM No.6759/2013 wherein Hon'ble Court observed that " if the petitioner had been more vigilant in checking her email, she could have responded to the respondents in time. As a result, no significant fault was found on the part of the respondents, and there was no justification to interfere with the tender process at such a late stage." xiii. Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellant's claim was never admitted and never formed part of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out providing any cogent reason/basis. 8. The contesting Respondent No.2/ RP on the other hand submitted that the appellant had only provided the demand notices for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 but no enforceable assessment orders were attached with the claim which could have enabled RP to crystalize the said claim. Its only after the approval of resolution plan with 100% voting in the 8th CoC meeting on 20.05.2024 and after filing of the application under Section 30(6) of the Code for approval of the resolution plan on 28.05.2024 that appellant for the first time provided the copy of assessment order dated 24.12.2018 for a tax demand of Rs. 3,66,00,910/-. The RP duly communicated the fact of pendency of plan approval application with Adjudicating Authority vide email dated 06.06.2024 which gave the appellant a further opportunity to raise its grievance before Adjudicating Authority, till the disposal of the aforesaid plan approval application on 11.12.2024. 9. The appellant has stated that the email dated 06.06.2024 send by RP regarding resolution plan approval was received in the spam folder due to which they could not take follow up action. Per contra the Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) In the third and final time, only one Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRA) applied, whose plan was approved by CoC in its 8th Meeting vide dated 20.05.2024. The aforesaid PRA is the successful resolution applicant in the present case. (iii) The liquidation and fair value of the CD was Rs. 1.09 lakh (iv) The total size of the resolution plan was Rs. 20 lakhs and it involved upfront one-time payment to all stakeholders. 15. The distribution of resolution amount among different categories of creditors is given below: S. No. Category of Stakeholder Sub-Category of Stakeholder Amount Claimed Amount Admitted Amount Provided under the Plan # Amount provided to the Amount Claimed in % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1. CIRP cost 13.50 2. Unsecured Financial Creditors who voted in favour of the resolution plan 147.26 146.99 3.50 2.38 3. Operational Creditors Government 2072.20 1092.61 3.00 0.28 Grand Total 2219.46 1239.6 20.00 2.52 16. The distribution of the amount received under the resolution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istribution of proceeds in respect of a class of recipients that rank equally, each of the debts will either be paid in full, or will be paid in equal proportion within the same class of recipients, if the proceeds are insufficient to meet the debts in full; and (ii) the term "workmen's dues" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)." 17. We note from the resolution plan that there are three categories of payments which have to be made from the resolution proceeds of Rs. 20 lakhs. The CIRP cost figures at Section 53(1)(a) of the Code and it has the first priority in the water fall mechanism and has to be paid in full. Accordingly, In this case the full amount of Rs. 13.5 lakhs towards the CIRP cost have been provided. 18. The next category of creditors in the present case is unsecured financial creditor, which figure at Section 53 (1) (d) of the Code. The total claim admitted for the unsecured financial creditor is Rs. 146.99 lakhs, against which an amount of Rs. 3.50 lakh have been provided, this amounts to 2.38% of the admitted claims in the category. 19. The third and last category in this case is Oper....