All. HC: Arbitrator’s Requirement to Provide Reason Hinges on Pleadings & Available Docs. on Record  ||  Supreme Court: No Provision Under GST Act for Pre-payment Prior to Adjudication  ||  Supreme Court: Cannot Set Aside Conviction Only on the Ground that Witness Turned Hostile  ||  SC: Can Use Witness Statement Recorded In Absence of Accused, if Conditions of S. 299 CrPC Fulfilled  ||  Del. HC: Administration has Turned Blind Eye Towards Functioning of Dairies in National Capital  ||  Delhi High Court: Ramping Up of Food Sampling & Testing Required in National Capital  ||  Bom. HC: Ensure Availability of Essential Infrastructure to Implement e-Mulakaat System in Prisons  ||  Supreme Court: Concept of 'Parental Alienation Syndrome' Discussed in Child Custody Dispute  ||  Allahabad HC: Person Reposing Faith in Islam Cannot Claim Right in Nature of Live-in-Relationship  ||  Bom. HC: Renaming of Aurangabad and Osmanabad to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar And Dharashiv Upheld    

A K Trading Co Pvt. Ltd & Ors vs. Sumit Shukla & Ors - (National Company Law Tribunal) (30 Jan 2024)

Operational Creditor cannot claim parity with Financial Creditors

MANU/NL/0072/2024

Insolvency

Present Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) by which order the Adjudicating Authority has allowed application approving the Resolution Plan. The Appellant, an Operational Creditor aggrieved by the plan approval order has come up in present Appeal.

The Appellant submits that, there is a disparity in the payment to the Financial Creditors as well as to the Operational Creditors. Financial Creditors have been paid 13.9% whereas Operational Creditors have been paid only 4.7%. It is submitted that the Operational Creditors who have supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor were entitled payment which is just and equitable.

It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Committee of Creditors of Essar Steels India Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta" that there cannot be parity of payment with regard to different categories of stakeholders. The Appellant who is an Operational Creditor cannot claim parity with Financial Creditors. Even under Section 53 of the IBC, the payments are provided in different ladders and priorities. The amount or percentage to the Operational Creditors cannot be claim to be of the same amount or percentage which has been paid to the Financial Creditors.

The ground on which the Appellant sought to question the order impugned is unsustainable. Insofar as the submission of the Appellant that some Operational Creditors have not received the payment as per the plan, it is always open for the Appellant to approach the Resolution Professional for payments, if the same has not yet been made. Appeal dismissed.

Tags :   RESOLUTION PLAN  APPROVAL  LEGALITY

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved