Department Of State Tax vs Trimax It Infrastructure & Services ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 971 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A creditor's dissatisfaction with the quantum of its claim recovered under an approved resolution plan is not, by itself, a ground for setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's approval of that plan; the Appellate Tribunal found no error in the approval where the claimant received a fractional share of its claim as allocated under the plan and the plan had already been implemented.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Department of State Tax ...Appellant
Versus
Trimax IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Aaditya Pande, Advocates. For Respondents: Ms. Udita Singh, Advocate for R-2.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
30.11.2021: Heard Shri Rahul Chitnis, Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench-I (Special Bench) dated
04.05.2020 by which the Application filed by the Resolution Professional for
approval of the Resolution Plan has been allowed. The Appellant before us is
Department of State Tax who has also filed their claim regarding Value Added
Tax, Central Sales Tax as well as GST. Total claim was Rs.260,40,09,899/- out
of which in the Resolution Plan only 4.88% was paid to the Appellant. The
Resolution Plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority after
considering all aspects of the matter. It is also not disputed that with regard to
claim of the Appellant, 4.88% of claim was allocated and paid as per the
Resolution Plan.
Cont'd.../ 2
2. It has also been pointed out by Learned Counsel for the Respondent that
Resolution Plan has already been implemented in July, 2020.
3. We do not find any error in the judgment of the Adjudicating Authority
approving the Resolution Plan. The mere fact that the Appellant could receive
only 4.88% of their clam in the Resolution Plan could not be a ground to set aside
the acceptance of Resolution Plan. We do not find any 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. 971 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