Smfg India Credit Co Ltd (Formerly ... vs Ca Kshitiz Gupta Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1886
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the principle that, where the question of law is the subject of a pending reference to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, the existing binding decision of the Tribunal in India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Metaliks Ltd. (as applied in Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. v. Jayesh Sanghrajka) must continue to be followed until the reference is answered, so that a dissenting financial creditor's claim for liquidation value based on the value of its secured interest cannot succeed at present.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: SMFG India Credit Co. Ltd. (Formerly Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd.) ...Appellant Versus (CA) Kshitiz Gupta, RP Aditya Vidyut Appliances Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Harish A. Khan and Mr. Ajinkya Kurudukar, Advocates for R-1.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.10.2024 : I.A. No. 6966 & 6967/2024
1. Sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of 1 day delay in filing
the Appeal.
Delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1886 & 1887 of 2024
1. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 12.08.2024 passed
by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench, Court- II), in I.A. 1846/2024 in C.P. (IB) No. 193/MB/2019.
The Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order has rejected the
Application filed by the Appellant.
2. Appellant is a dissenting Financial Creditor who has filed the
Application seeking a direction that he should be given Liquidation Value as per the value of the secured interest of the Appellant in the assets of the
Corporate Debtor. Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan
and has allowed the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan and
rejected the Application filed by the Appellant.
3. Adjudicating Authority has taken a view that Resolution Plan is in
compliance of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,
(for short `The IBC').
4. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional (`RP') submits that the
value which has been given to the Appellant is in accordance with Liquidation
Value as per Section 30(2)(b) and the Appellant is claiming the benefit of
Judgment in the matter of `DBS Bank Singapore' Vs. `Ruchi Soya
Industries Ltd. & Anr.' reported in 2024 INSC 14, where the reference has
been made to the Larger Bench for resolving the conflict.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent relies on the Judgment of this
Tribunal in the matter of `Beacon Trusteeship Limited'
Vs. `Jayesh Sanghrajka & Ors.', where this Tribunal has held that till the
reference is answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the law laid down in the
matter of `India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. `Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Anr.'
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 409, has to be followed.
6. In view of the above, we are of the view that no error has been committed
by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the I.A. 1846/2024 filed by the
Appellant.
The Appeal is dismissed.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1886 & 1887 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6966, 6967 of 2024 2 of 3 However, liberty is reserved to the Appellant to make an Application
after the reference is answered accepting the contentions with regard to
submission raised by the Appellant.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1886 & 1887 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6966, 6967 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