Commercial Tax Department vs Mr. Sajjan Kumar Dokania & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1412 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a claim is filed after the Committee of Creditors has already approved the resolution plan, and the claimant has not filed its claim within the time prescribed, the Adjudicating Authority commits no error in approving the resolution plan without providing for that claim, and the claimant cannot be treated as a secured creditor entitled to distribution under Section 53 merely because it is a secured creditor. Where the resolution plan has already been implemented and the distributable amounts have been disbursed to the financial creditors and other claimants, no relief can be granted to a late claimant whose claim would have to be satisfied out of a fund that no longer exists.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Commercial Tax Department ...Appellant
Versus
Sajjan Kumar Dokania & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Mr. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar and Mr. Shashwat Anand, Advocates. For Respondents: Ms. Honey Satpal, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Arti Singh, Mr. Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Ms. Pooja Singh and Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocates for R- 2&3.
ORDER
23.01.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has
been filed against the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority by which order the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution
Professional has been approved. The Appellant - Commercial Tax Department
has filed this Appeal challenging the said order. The brief facts of the case
which are necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal are:
(i) The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced by order
dated 04.12.2020.
(ii) Publication was made by the Resolution Professional on
08.12.2020. In pursuance of the publication claims were
Cont'd.../ 2
submitted which were verified and collated by the Resolution
Professional.
(iii) Form G was published on 17.02.2020 inviting Expression of
Interest and subsequently, in the CIRP four plans were received.
(iv) In 14th meeting of the CoC dated 25.08.2021, Resolution Plan of
M/s Sangeet Television Network Pvt. Ltd. was approved. However,
it appears that the Bank Guarantee was not furnished within
time, hence, the CoC set aside and cancelled the Resolution Plan.
(v) The Resolution Professional issued fresh Form G on 11.10.2021
and thereafter the in 22nd CoC meeting dated 07.12.2021, the
plan of MS Soya Industries in consortium with Mr. Sanjay Chpra
was approved with 98.28% votes. The plan did not propose any
payment to the Operational Creditors.
(vi) After the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, the Appellant
has filed its claim on 01.06.2022 before the Resolution
Professional vide Form B. The Resolution Professional
communicated the Appellant that their claim cannot be
considered at this stage. On 09.09.2022, the Resolution Plan has
been approved by the Adjudicating Authority.
(vii) The Appellant filed an application before the Adjudicating
Authority challenging the rejection of the claim, which application
has also been rejected on 16.06.2022. The Adjudicating Authority
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1412 of 2022 3
while rejecting the application on 16.06.2022 has observed that
the claims were reflected in the Information Memorandum. The
Adjudicating Authority also observed that the Resolution
Professional should have informed the Appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the approval of the
Resolution Plan contends that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020, State Tax Officer (1) vs. Rainbow
Papers Ltd.", the Appellant being Secured Creditor was entitled to be dealt
with as Secured Creditor and to be allocated amount as per Section 53 at par
with the Secured Financial Creditors. It is submitted that for the mere fact
that Appellant did not file its claim, Appellant shall not be disentitled from
distribution as Secured Creditor. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed
a claim on 01.06.2022, although by that time the CoC has already approved
the Resolution Plan, the plan was not approved by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent refuting the submissions of learned
counsel for the Appellant contends that Appellant having not filed any claim
within the time, there was no error committed in distribution as per the list of
creditors finalised and approved. It is submitted that even the claim was filed
by the Appellant in Form B and not filed as Secured Creditor. It is further
submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State Tax
Officer (1) vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd." relied by the Appellant cannot benefit
the Appellant since in the present case publication was issued on 08.12.2020
whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a claim which was
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1412 of 2022 4
received prior to notification amending the Regulation, 2016 dated
03.07.2018. It is submitted that the Resolution Applicant has already
implemented the plan and amounts have been disbursed and there are no
amount left in the kitty out of which claim of the Appellant can be considered.
4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
5. From the facts brought on the record, there is no dispute that at the
time when claim was filed by the Appellant on 01.06.2022, the CoC has
already approved the Resolution Plan. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "State Tax Officer (1) vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd." was considering a
claim which were invited on 05.10.2017 which was much prior to amendment
in the Regulation, as has been noted in the judgment.
6. It is to be noted that in the facts of the present case, the plan approved
has also been implemented and the amount received has been disbursed to
the Financial Creditors and other claimants as per the Resolution Plan. The
submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant being a
Secured Creditor as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"State Tax Officer (1) vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd." he ought to have been
allocated amount as per Section 53 at par with the Secured Financial Creditors
cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. When there is no claim
filed by the Appellant within time, no error has been committed by the
Adjudicating Authority in approving the Resolution Plan, which was approved
by the CoC much prior to filing of the claim by the Appellant. We, thus, are of
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1412 of 2022 5
the view that no relief can be granted to the Appellant in the facts of the
present case, hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1412 of 2022
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