Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Phoenix Erectors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 410 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that, where the impugned resolution plan distributes the same proportion of admitted claims to financial creditors and operational creditors as a class, there is no discrimination between them, and an allegation of discriminatory treatment among creditors in a resolution plan is answered by that comparison of the treatment actually given to each class.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
Phoenix Erectors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Joy Basu, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pallavi Sharma and Mr. Kanak Bose, Advocates.
For Respondents: - Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Mr. Sangram Singh R. Bhonsle, Mr. Siddharth Mehta, Ms. Samridhi Jain, Mr. Akshay Joshi and Mr. Aditu Dongrawat, Advocates.
O R D E R
27.05.2019─ Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that
inadvertently wrong impression was given that the Appellant is a
'Financial Creditor' and percentage of it was wrongly informed on the
earlier date.
2. It is submitted that the Appellant is 'Operational Creditor' who has
supplied electricity but was discriminated in the matter of payment.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents while
submitted that the appeal is time barred, also submits that the same very
impugned order dated 13th July, 2018 fell for consideration before this
Appellate Tribunal in "Sales Tax Department, State of Maharashtra
Vs. Phoenix Erectors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.─ Company Appeal (AT)
Contd/-...........
-2-
(Insolvency) No. 559 of 2018 etc." wherein this Appellate Tribunal by
its judgment dated 20th March, 2019 upheld the impugned order on the
ground that similarly situated 'Operational Creditors' have been equated
and treated in a similar manner.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent- 'Successful Resolution
Applicant' further submits that all the 'Financial Creditors' have been
given 17.8% of their debts whereas all the 'Operational Creditors' have
been provided with 17.5% of their debts.
5. From the aforesaid fact, we find that both the 'Financial Creditors'
and the 'Operational Creditors' inter se have been given same treatment
and no discrimination has been made.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial)
(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) Ar/g
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