M/S Pakhi Infra vs Jabalpur Msw Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2175 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Till the Adjudicating Authority approves a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, no part of the plan may be furnished to an applicant on his application, so a direction to the resolution professional to provide an extract of the resolution plan to an operational creditor before approval cannot be granted. An operational creditor who is a participant in the corporate insolvency resolution process has the right to file objections to a resolution plan pending before the Adjudicating Authority, and that right is not defeated by the refusal of the plan extract, so the creditor may raise such objections on or before the next date fixed for hearing, to be considered in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2175 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Pakhi Infra & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Jabalpur MSW Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Harsh Parashar, Mr. N. Sai Vinod and Mr. Kanu Garg, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Sr. Counsel with Mr. Vinod Chaurasia, Mr. Auritro Mukherjee, Advocates for Respondents. Mr. Krishnendu Datta Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prithu Garg, Mr. Parth Bhatia, Mr. Akhil Nene, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinod Chaurasia, Mr. Sajjan Kumar Dokania, Advocates for RP/ R2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
22.11.2024: Heard counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.10.2024 on
intervention petition no. 39 of 2024. The appellant represents the operational
creditor who have filed their claim in the CIRP of the corporate debtor their
admitted claim was Rs.3.4 crores. The appellant's intervention application have
been disposed of by Adjudicating Authority observing that at this stage
Adjudicating Authority is not inclined to pass any direction in respect of the
prayer (b) where the applicant has prayed that resolution professional be directed to provide applicant with the copy of resolution plan/ any other
relevant documents pertaining to CIRP.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in the resolution plan only
total of Rs.1 Lakh has been proposed to be paid to the operational creditor
whereas their admitted dues was Rs.3.4 crores. Ld. Counsel for the appellant
submits that unless the appellant is provided the relevant extract of the
resolution plan no detailed objection can be filed.
3. Ld. Counsel for the RP as well as the Ld. Counsel for the SRA opposed
the prayers made by the appellant and submits that it was always open for the
appellant to file objections to the resolution plan which is pending before
Adjudicating Authority for approval. Once intervention application was
withdrawn and thereafter other invention application was filed.
4. we have considered the submission of the counsel for the parties. We are
not persuaded with the submission of the appellant that RP be directed to
provide the extract of the resolution plan. Till the resolution plan is approved
by the Adjudicating Authority no part of the plan can be given to the applicant
on his application.
5. We thus do not find any error in order rejecting the prayer seeking a
direction to provide the extract of the resolution plan. However, we are of the
view that as operational creditor, who is the part of the CIRP the appellant has
every right to file an objection. Ld. Counsel for the respondent informs that on
29.12.2024 is the next date fixed before Adjudicating Authority. It shall be Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2175 of 2024 2 of 3 open for the appellant to file his objection to the resolution plan by the next
date which may be considered and decided in accordance with law. Subject to
above, the appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2175 of 2024 3 of 3
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