Supreme Court: Vacancies From Resignations under CUSAT Act Must Follow Communal Rotation  ||  Supreme Court: Forest Land Cannot Be Leased or Used For Agriculture Without Centre’s Approval  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence and Accused’s Role Must Guide Suspension of Sentence under CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Arbitral Awards Cannot be Set Aside For Mere Legal Errors or Misreading of Evidence  ||  SC Acknowledges Child Trafficking as a Grave Reality and Issues Guidelines to Assess Victim Evidence  ||  Allahabad HC: When Parties Extend an Agreement by Conduct, The Arbitration Clause Extends Too  ||  Supreme Court: Issues of Party Capacity and Maintainability Must Be Decided by Arbitral Tribunal  ||  Supreme Court: Omissions in Chief Examination Can Be Rectified During Cross-Examination  ||  Supreme Court: Items Given by Accused to Police Are Not Section 27 Recoveries under Evidence Act  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Institutions Must Pay Court Fees When Filing Disputes in State Tribunal    

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