Concept Management Consulting Limited vs Powercon Projects Association Limited ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 843 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The statutory requirement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is that a compromise or arrangement must be approved by a majority in number representing three-fourths in value of the creditors, so where the dominant financial creditor holding a voting share of 56.43% has not approved a compromise proposal, the Adjudicating Authority has no occasion to approve it, and the Tribunal will not interfere with a refusal on that ground.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 843 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Concept Management Consulting Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
Powercon Projects & Associates Ltd. Through Sh. ....Respondents Chaitanya Kumar Ray, Liquidator & Ors.
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kiran Kumar Patra, Mr. Debarshi Bhadra, Mr. Rajat Sinha, Advocates, Mr. Anup Gupta (AR) For Respondents: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Ashutosh Jain, Mr. Pratik Samajpati, Advocates
ORDER
18.08.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.05.2022
passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench by
which order Adjudicating Authority has refused to approve the petition filed by
the liquidator either allow or reject compromise proposal dated 04.02.2022
filed by the Appellant.
The Adjudicating Authority has noticed in the order that in the lenders
meeting the State Bank of India which has voting shares of 56.43% has not
agreed with the compromise proposal submitted by the Appellant as a
Financial Creditor.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant was not given
opportunity to place its proposal and deal with the objections.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 843 of 2022 Page 1 We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
Paragraph 3 of the order clearly mentions that Counsel for the
compromise proposal was heard. The statutory requirement under Section 230
of the Companies Act is that three fourths in value of creditors should approve
the compromise, when the proposal has not been approved by the financial
creditor i.e. State Bank of India having voting shares of 56.43%, there was no
occasion for approving the compromise proposal submitted by the Appellant.
We do not find any error in the order impugned, appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
sa/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 843 of 2022 Page 2
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