AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, learned counsel appears for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 03.08.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Court No.1, Mumbai Bench has allowed the application filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 30 sub-section (6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’). The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has approved the Resolution Plan. The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, has come up in this Appeal challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Operational Creditor’s total debt claimed was Rs.9,90,79,339/- and the plan only provides for Rs.10 Lakhs to all Operational Creditors, which is arbitrary and discriminatory. He submits that the Appellant had no opportunity to appear before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) or the Adjudicating Authority.
We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
The Resolution Plan which was submitted by the Resolution Applicant was looked into as per the statutory scheme and on report submitted by the Resolution Professional that the plan is in compliance with provisions of the Code it was considered by the CoC and CoC in its 6th meeting approved the plan by 80.35% vote of the members of the CoC. The submission of the Appellant that less amount has been earmarked for Operational Creditor cannot be ground to set aside the Resolution Plan which has been approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority. The commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be interfered with in exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction. The challenge to the Resolution Plan can be entertained only on the ground as contemplated under Section 61(3) of the Code. We are satisfied that no ground within the meaning of Section 61(3) has been made out in the present Appeal to interfere with the order of the Adjudicating Authority. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.