Department Of Sales Tax Through Deputy ... vs 1. Mr. Rajat Mukherjee (Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 929 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's approval of a resolution plan under Section 30(6) of the Code cannot be shown to be infirm merely because the amount allocated to a statutory dues creditor is less than the amount of its claimed statutory dues, where the plan is said to take care of the dues of all creditors and the appellant does not establish that the Code or the Regulations require the allocation to a particular creditor to equal or exceed its statutory dues.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Department of Sales Tax through Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax ...Appellant
Versus
Rajat Mukharjee (Resolution Professional for Ashtavinayak Auto Pvt. Ltd.) & Anr. ...Respondents
For Appellant: Mr. Amar Mishra and Mr. Tejas Kasar, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Rahul Punjabi, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Kunal Kanungo, Mr. Atishay Jain and Ms. Tanushree Sogani, Advocates for R-2.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
22.11.2021: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal under
Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code' in short) has
been filed against order dated 5th March, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench. The Adjudicating
Authority by the impugned order allowed the Application filed under Section 30(6)
of the Code and Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Leadadroit Services Pvt. Ltd.
was approved. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the statutory
dues of the Department - Appellant were to the tune of more than Ra.5 Crores
whereas in the Resolution Plan only an amount of Rs.4 Lakh was allocated. He
submits that due to this reason Resolution Plan ought not to have been approved.
Cont'd..../ 2
2. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent refuted the submissions made by
the Counsel for the Appellant and contended that Resolution Plan takes care of
dues of all the Creditors including the Appellant and in Company Appeal (AT)
(Insolvency) No. 615 of 2021, which is related to a Sister Concerned Company,
the same arguments were rejected and approval of Resolution Plan was affirmed
by this Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is not able to substantiate
its submission that in the Resolution Plan there cannot be amount lesser than
the amount of statutory dues. Resolution Plan cannot be said to be in non-
compliance of any provision of the Code or Regulations.
3. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Adjudicating
Authority. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Archana/nn.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 929 of 2021
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