Calcutta HC Disqualifies Politician Mukul Roy from Assembly under Anti-Defection Law  ||  Supreme Court Bans Mining in and Around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries  ||  Supreme Court Terms Delay in Framing Charges for 4 Years in Maharashtra Case ‘Shocking’  ||  Kerala High Court: Widow’s Remarriage No Bar to Compassionate Appointment  ||  Delhi HC: Child Care Leave Not Absolute but Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily  ||  Bombay HC: Furnace Oil Not Part of ‘Plant & Machinery’, No Complete Sales Tax Set-Off  ||  MP HC: Injury Not Required to Prove Attempt to Murder  ||  Supreme Court: Tenant Must Pay Rent Despite Appeal Against Fixation Order Without Stay  ||  Supreme Court: Counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC Allowed Only Against Plaintiff  ||  SC: Externally Procured Parts Given For Assembly, Not Used in Manufacture, Not Liable to Excise Duty    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved