Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers  ||  Delhi HC: CCI Cannot Levy Interest Retrospectively Before Valid Service of Demand Notice  ||  Delhi HC: VC Rules Don’t Shield PMLA Accused From Physically Appearing Before ED in Probe  ||  SC: If Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence, Magistrate May Order FIR Registration U/S .156(3) CrPC  ||  SC: Private Buses Can’t Operate on Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes  ||  Delhi HC: Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Provisional Attachment When PMLA Remedy Exists    

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