Anil N Surwade & Ors vs Prashant Jain Resolution Professional ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1006 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where operational creditors who are employees of the corporate debtor have had their claims admitted by the resolution professional, their interest in the corporate insolvency resolution process is limited to the satisfaction of those admitted claims, and their role cannot be enlarged so as to entitle them to participate in or access the proceedings of the Committee of Creditors or the consideration of resolution plans. An application by such creditors seeking such access is therefore not maintainable before the Adjudicating Authority, and such creditors cannot be placed on par with the erstwhile Board of Directors in seeking information regarding resolution plans and Committee of Creditors proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Anil N. Surwade & Ors. ....Appellants Vs. Mr. Prashant Jain, Resolution Professional, ....Respondent Sejal Glass Ltd.
Present:
Appellants: Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Mr. Darryl Periera and Mr. Parthasarathi Bose, Advocates.
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
03.12.2020: Appellants, the employees of Corporate Debtor, are aggrieved of rejection of their application vide impugned order dated 28th September, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Special Bench, Court No.II, on the ground that employees of the Corporate Debtor have a limited interest regarding their claims to which they are entitled from the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the Appellants as Operational Creditors wanted to have access to the proceedings before the Committee of Creditors in regard to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and Resolution Plans filed for approval.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the Appellants, we are of the view that the application before the Adjudicating Authority culminating in passing of the impugned order was not maintainable as the Appellants in their capacity as Operational Creditors (employees of the Corporate Debtor) would have a limited interest to the extent of satisfaction of their claims which ha ve been admitted by the Resolution Professional. Their role could not be enlarged. It is equally absurd
Contd/-.............
-2- to put the Appellants at par with the erstwhile Board of Directors seeking information in regard to the Resolution Plans and the proceedings before the Committee of Creditors. Once the claims of the Appellants have been admitted, no role is ascribed to them in the deliberation of the Committee of Creditors. The application on consideration whereof the impugned order came to be passe d, would not be maintainable.
We find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the dismissal of this appeal will not in any manner be construed as affecting the Appellants' right in regard to their claim.
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
AR/g
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1006 of 2020
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free