Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited vs Mr. Raman Sibal & Ors

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 495 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus Raman Sibal & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Sonam Anand, Mr. Vakesh Anand, Mr. Akshay Thakur, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Amol Vyas, Advocate for R4 Mr. Nakul Mohta, Advocate for R1/ SRA Mr. Satyendra Khoranian, Advocate for R2

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

20.03.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for Appellant and Ld. Counsel

appearing for Respondent. Resolution Professional as well as SRA have also

appeared.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 20/01/2026, by

which order Adjudicating Authority has allowed the I.A (Plan)9/2025.

3. Grievance of the Appellant is that Appellant has filed a claim in the

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor, of Rs.

1,05,00,000/- by way of Form 'B' dated 15/04/2025, and in the Resolution

Plan, only Rs. 21,000/- has been proposed.

4. It is submitted that the Appellant has been dealt prejudicially in the

Plan which Plan has been approved by the Impugned order.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent submits that the Appellant, in event of

liquidation of the CD, could have only received nil amount, hence amount

paid in the Plan is not in violation of Section 30(2) of the IBC.

6. We have considered submissions of the Parties and perused the

Records.

7. The entitlement of an operational creditor, under section 30(2) is as

follows :

"30(2) The resolution professional shall examine each resolution plan re- ceived by him to confirm that each resolution plan--

(a) provides for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a manner specified by the Board in priority to the 2 [payment] of other debts of the corporate debtor; 3

(b) provides for the payment of debts of operational creditors in such manner as may be specified by the Board which shall not be less than--

(i) the amount to be paid to such creditors in the event of a liqui-

dation of the corporate debtor under section 53; or

(ii) the amount that would have been paid to such creditors, if the amount to be distributed under the resolution plan had been dis- tributed in accordance with the order of priority in sub-section (1) of section 53,

whichever is higher and provides for the payment of debts of fi- nancial creditors, who do not vote in favour of the resolution plan, in such manner as may be specified by the Board, which shall not be less than the amount to be paid to such creditors in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 53 in the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor."

8. It is not disputed that in the liquidation value of the operational

creditor, in event assets were liquidated, the Appellant ought not to have

been received any amount and liquidation value of the operational creditor

2 of 3 being nil, amount paid in the Resolution Plan to the Appellant cannot be

said to be in violation of the Section 30(2) of the IBC.

9. We thus are of the view that no grounds have been made out to

interfere with the order approving the Resolution Plan.

10. With these observations, Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

3 of 3