AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
26.05.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court-1, by which the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan with regard to the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant had claim an amount of Rs.5,45,69,005/- as his dues pertaining to security officer from 2010 to 2019. The Plan having approved and the Operational Creditor in the plan have been allowed certain amounts, as a good will measure consequently an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- has been paid to the Appellant towards its charges as a security officer, under the Resolution Plan.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the amount paid is not in accordance with the claim. He, however, submits that the Appellant has a limited argument in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, (2019) 12 SCC 150”. However, he submits that there was a claim during the CIRP period since the Appellant was also engaged by the Resolution Professional (RP) by letter dated 07.12.2019 for which payment, no order has been passed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he has approached the RP and RP has asked him to approach the Monitoring Committee for the CIRP dues which is entrusted with the implementation of the Resolution Plan.
After having heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, we are of the view that no ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 by which Resolution Plan has been approved. The Appellant who was an Operational Creditor whose claim was admitted has already been paid the amount of Rs.3,80,000/-, as per the Resolution Plan. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531” and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, (2019) 12 SCC 150”, no challenge to approval of the Resolution Plan can be raised in the present Appeal. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal stands dismissed insofar as the impugned order. However, with regard to CIRP costs of the Appellant, it is open for the Appellant to approach the Monitoring Committee for his CIRP dues and it is for the Monitoring Committee to take call on the said.
With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.