AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29/01/2026, by which Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Application I.A. (IBC) (Plan) No. 110 of 2025.
Appellant is an operational creditor, being aggrieved by this order has come up with this Appeal. Ld. Counsel for Appellant raised two submissions challenging the order.
Firstly, he submitted that the Resolution Professional has not admitted the interest component and only admitted the principle amount of Rs. 14,86,777/-. It is submitted that Appellant had no opportunity to file an Application.
Secondly, Ld. Counsel for Appellant submitted that the valuation of the Corporate Debtor has been undervalue, whereas the value of the CD is much more, more than thrice.
Ld. Counsel for the RP submitted that Appellant was communicated by the RP on 01/12/2025 that only principle amount has been admitted and the interest amount is not admitted.
It is submitted that Appellant did not take any steps to challenge the said decision and it is further submitted that pay out to the Appellant is in accordance with Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC.
We have heard Counsel for the Parties and perused the record.
Appellant, as operational creditor is entitled for pay out under Section 30(2)(b). It is not the case that pay out made to the Appellant is contrary to the entitlement under Section 30(2)(b).
In so far as the submission of the Appellant that he did not get an opportunity to challenge non admission of the interest. Suffice is to say that RP has communicated that his interest component is not admitted and no steps is shown to have been taken.
Coming to the valuation, submission of the Appellant that CD is undervalue, question of valuation is to be conducted as per the CIRP Regulation, 2016, and that valuation is as per the procedure envisaged in 2016 Regulations.
The Operational Creditor, after Plan Approval Application, cannot be allowed to raise issues regarding valuations, which has already been considered and become final during the CIRP Process.
We thus are of the view that none of the grounds made by the Appellant makes out any ground to interfere in the impugned order.
The Appeal is dismissed.