NCLT Ahmedabad: When Financial Creditors Have Not Been Paid In Full, Higher Amount Cannot Be Claimed By Operational Creditors

The National Company Law Tribunal in the case Noble Resource International Pvt. Ltd. v Sona Alloys Pvt. Ltd, wherein the Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Judicial Member, Dr. Deepti Mukesh and the Technical Member, Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra observed in a petition filed and has held that when Financial Creditors have not been paid in full in the Resolution Plan, the Operation Creditor cannot claim of the high amount with regards to the same.
Facts of the Case:
The corporate debtor, Sona Alloys Pvt. Ltd was being admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. It has been submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant/SRA, M/s MTC Business Private Limited, a Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor which was approved by the Committee of Creditors with 99.732% votes. Thus, the Resolution Plan proposed to pay Rs.365.85 Crores to the secured Financial Creditors which being against an admitted claim of Rs.1696.82 Crores and the Operational Creditor being proposed to be paid Rs. 19 Lakhs as against an admitted claim for an amount
of Rs.114.7 Crores.
An application was also filed by M/s Pani Logistics, who being an Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor, wherein seeking rejection of the Resolution Plan. It was also argued that the Resolution Plan undermines the interest of the Operational Creditors and a merge amount of 0.096% of their total claim has been paid by the operational creditor, while the Financial Creditors are being paid 21.56% of their said claims in the resolution plan.
NCLT Verdict
It has been observed by the bench that a conjoint reading of Section 30 and Section 53 of IBC wherein showing that the Financial Creditors are placed at a higher priority than Operational Creditors. The Secured Financial Creditors are also being covered by Section 53(1)(b)(ii), thus, the Unsecured Financial Creditors are also being covered by Section 53(1)(d). Thereafter, the Operational Creditors are to be considered having lower priority and are covered by Section 53(1)(f). The Operational Creditors cannot claim a higher amount, since the Financial Creditors have
not been paid in full.
It has also been held by the bench that the Resolution Plan did not violate IBC and the bench dismissed
the application.
NCLT Ahmedabad: When Financial Creditors Have Not Been Paid In Full, Higher Amount Cannot Be Claimed By Operational Creditors
The National Company Law Tribunal in the case Noble Resource International Pvt. Ltd. v Sona Alloys Pvt. Ltd, wherein the Ahmedabad Bench, comprising of Judicial Member, Dr. Deepti Mukesh and the Technical Member, Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra observed in a petition filed and has held that when Financial Creditors have not been paid in full in the Resolution Plan, the Operation Creditor cannot claim of the high amount with regards to the same.
Facts of the Case:
The corporate debtor, Sona Alloys Pvt. Ltd was being admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. It has been submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant/SRA, M/s MTC Business Private Limited, a Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor which was approved by the Committee of Creditors with 99.732% votes. Thus, the Resolution Plan proposed to pay Rs.365.85 Crores to the secured Financial Creditors which being against an admitted claim of Rs.1696.82 Crores and the Operational Creditor being proposed to be paid Rs. 19 Lakhs as against an admitted claim for an amount
of Rs.114.7 Crores.
An application was also filed by M/s Pani Logistics, who being an Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor, wherein seeking rejection of the Resolution Plan. It was also argued that the Resolution Plan undermines the interest of the Operational Creditors and a merge amount of 0.096% of their total claim has been paid by the operational creditor, while the Financial Creditors are being paid 21.56% of their said claims in the resolution plan.
NCLT Verdict
It has been observed by the bench that a conjoint reading of Section 30 and Section 53 of IBC wherein showing that the Financial Creditors are placed at a higher priority than Operational Creditors. The Secured Financial Creditors are also being covered by Section 53(1)(b)(ii), thus, the Unsecured Financial Creditors are also being covered by Section 53(1)(d). Thereafter, the Operational Creditors are to be considered having lower priority and are covered by Section 53(1)(f). The Operational Creditors cannot claim a higher amount, since the Financial Creditors have not been paid in full.
It has also been held by the bench that the Resolution Plan did not violate IBC and the bench dismissed
the application.