03rd April, 2025 Approval of Resolution Plan - PG Advertising Private Limited [I.A. No. 3713/2023 in C.P.(IB) – 996(ND)/2020] (2.21 MB)
IA. No. 3713/2023 in C.P. (IB)-996/(ND)/2020 Tulsi Nandan Kant Bansal Vs. PG Advertising Private Limited
Page 1 of 57
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI BENCH (COURT-II)
I.A. NO. 3713/2023
IN
C.P.(IB) – 996(ND)/2020
IN THE MATTER OF: Tulsi Nandan Kant Bansal
… Financial Creditor
Versus
PG Advertising Private Limited
(Formerly known as Prabhatam Advertising
Private Limited) … Corporate Debtor
AND IN THE MATTER OF IA. NO. 3713/2023:
Mr. Vinay Kumar Singhal
Resolution Professional
PG Advertising Private Limited
(Formerly Known as Prabhatam Advertising Private Limited)
411, Fourth Floor, Essel House,
Asif Ali Road, Near Turkman Gate,
National Capital Territory of Delhi -110002.
… Applicant/RP
Versus
-
Sanjay Nayak Address – B-319, H.E.C. Colony, Sector- 02, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. ... Respondent- 1
Page 2 of 57 -
Jyoti Singh Address- 886/ A-50, Ward No. 8,
Mehrauli, South Delhi- 110030. ... Respondent- 2
-
RK Advertising Service
Address- 72-A, Mohammadpur Village, New Delhi -110066. Also at – 1269, Sector- 8 C, Chandigarh-160018. ... Respondent- 3Order delivered on: 12.03.2025
UNDER SECTION: 30(6) of IBC, 2016
CORAM: SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, HON’BLE MEMBER (J) SH. SUBRATA KUMAR DASH HON’BLE MEMBER (T)
PRESENT: For the RP : Adv. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Karan Kohli, Adv. Ishaan Dhingra, Mr. Vinay Kumar Singhal, RP
ORDER The present I.A. No. 3713 of 2024 has been preferred by Mr. Vinay Kumar Singhal, Resolution Professional qua PG Advertising Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Applicant/RP’) under Section 30(6) of IBC, 2016, seeking the following reliefs: “a. Allow the present Application; b. Allow the present application and approve the Resolution Plan dated 27.06.2023 submitted by RK Advertising Service
Page 3 of 57
as unanimously approved by the Committee of Creditors in its
7th CoC meeting convened on 01.07.2023;
c.
Declare that upon approval of the Resolution Plan by this
Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority, the provisions of the
Resolution Plan shall be binding on the Company, its creditors,
guarantors, members, employees, Statutory Authorities and
other stakeholders in accordance with Section 31 of the Code,
and shall be given effect to and implemented pursuant to the
order of this Hon’ble Authority;
d. Approve the appointment of the monitoring agency as
stated in the Resolution Plan and approved by the Committee
of Creditors;
e.
Approve and grant reliefs and directions sought under
the Resolution Plan by the Resolution Applicant;
f.
Any other relief as this Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. Preliminary
2.1
To put the facts concisely, the underlying main petition C.P.(IB)-
996/(ND)/2020 was filed by Tulsi Nandan Kant Bansal (hereinafter referred
to as the “Financial Creditor”) against P.G. Advertising Private Limited
(hereinafter referred to as the “Corporate Debtor”) under Section 7 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Code”) which was admitted vide Order dated 18.10.2022 of this
Adjudicating Authority. Consequently, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) in respect of the Corporate Debtor
Page 4 of 57
was initiated and Mr. Vinay Kumar Singhal was appointed as the Interim
Resolution Professional (IRP).
2.2
Subsequently, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) resolved to appoint
the IRP as Resolution Professional (RP) in the 1st CoC meeting convened on
05.12.2022, and the same was confirmed by this Tribunal vide order
dated 14.12.2022.
3.
Collation of claims by RP
3.1.
It is stated by the Applicant that in terms of Regulation 6(1) of the
IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations,
2016, the Applicant made a public announcement in Form-A on 06.11.2022
to invite claims from creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant
further stated that after due verification of the claims received, the list of
creditors was prepared.
3.2. It is further stated by the Applicant that after collating the claims, a
Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted in terms of Section 21(1) of
the Code. In pursuance of his duties as contained under the Code, it came
to the knowledge of the RP that the Corporate Debtor was holding 99%
shareholding in Dev Versha Publication Private Limited i.e., one of the
members of the CoC. Since Dev Versha Publication Private Limited would
be a related party of the Corporate Debtor as per Section 5(24) of the Code,
it could neither be a member nor could have voting rights in the CoC. Thus,
the final list of claims, including that of the related party as mentioned by
the applicant, is reproduced herein below:
Page 5 of 57
A. FINANCIAL CREDITORS
B. OPERATIONAL CREDITORS
Sl.No.
Name
Nature
Amount Claimed
Amount
Admitted
1.
GST,
North
Delhi
Govt Dues
106,39,99,046
105,62,72,318
2.
Green Valley
Bio
Energy
Private
Limited
Operational
Creditors
1,47,50,000
1,47,50,000
3.
Mr.
Mahesh
Bajaj,
Prop.
M/s
Premier
Advertising
Operational
Creditors
1,06,11,685
1,06,11,485
4.
Noida
Media
Solutions
Operational
Creditors
2,21,224
2,21,224
5.
Digital
Radio
(Delhi)
Broadcasting
Limited
Operational
Creditors
23,48,093
23,48,093
6.
Digital
Radio
(Mumbai)
Broadcasting
Limited
Operational
Creditors
20,14,542
20,14,542
Page 6 of 57
Digital Radio (Kolkata) Broadcasting Limited Operational Creditors 32,28,455 14,98,896 8. Kal Radio Limited Operational Creditors 13,39,878 5,63,451 9. South Asia FM Ltd. Operational Creditors 10,68,048 7,77,804 10. GMN Media Private Ltd. Operational Creditors 15,35,637 6,51,844 11. DTC, New Delhi Operational Creditors 7,63,77,996 1,72,63,017 12. Ad Vantage, Faridabad Operational Creditors 2,56,255 2,56,255 13. New Delhi Municipal Council Operational Creditors 95,16,103 42,95,751 Total (B) Rs. 118,72,66,762 Rs. 111,15,24,680 Total Claim Amount (A+B) Rs. 139,13,88,488 Rs. 131,56,46,406
3.3. The RP has got the assets of the Corporate Debtor valued under the relevant rules, and the Fair Value and Liquidation Value are as under:
Page 7 of 57
3.4. The details of the meetings of CoC as stated in the Application read thus:
Page 8 of 57
Page 9 of 57
Page 10 of 57
Page 11 of 57
Page 12 of 57
-
Evaluation and voting 4.1. The Applicant further stated that in compliance with Regulation 36A(1) of CIRP Regulations, 2016, ‘Form-G’ was published by the Applicant on 03.01.2023, thereby inviting Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) to submit their Expression of Interest (EOI). In terms of Form G, the last date of submission of EOI was 18.01.2023. The Applicant submits that subsequently, it had received EOIs from two PRAs, viz. one being “RK Advertising Service, Proprietor Mr. Ashok Kumar Singhal” and another being “KDM Business Network Limited”. 4.2. It has been further submitted by the Applicant that the prescribed period of expiry of 180 days from the commencement of CIRP for the purpose of Section 12 of the Code was 15.04.2023. The CoC resolved to extend the CIRP period by 90 days at its 3rd meeting on 04.03.2023. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1624/2023 was moved before this Tribunal for the aforesaid extension, and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.03.2023.
4.3. The Applicant has stated that at the 4th meeting of the CoC convened on 14.04.2023, the Resolution Plans submitted by both the aforesaid PRAsPage 13 of 57
were opened and discussed. Later, at the 6th meeting of the CoC, the
Applicant placed a legal opinion before the CoC in respect of the ineligibility
of one of the PRAs, i.e., KDM Business Network Limited, since one of the
directors of the said PRA had been debarred from trading in securities by
SEBI. As a result, RK Advertising Service was the only PRA left to consider.
4.4. It is further stated by the Applicant that the Resolution Plan of RK
Advertising Service was approved unanimously by members of the CoC in
the 7th meeting of the CoC convened on 01.07.2023.
5. Details of Resolution Plan
5.1. The brief outlines of the Resolution Plan as mentioned by the
Applicant are extracted herein below for ease of reference:
The Financial Outlay as proposed under the Resolution Plan is as
follows:.
A.
Unsecured Financial Creditors:-
It is proposed to settle all the Claims of Unsecured Financial Creditors
(excluding the Related Party) pertaining to the period prior to the Insolvency
Commencement Date settled by way of maximum payment of Rs.
11,21,85,556/-(Rupees Eleven Crore Twenty One Lakhs Eighty Five
Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Six Only). It is proposed under the plan that
out of the afore-said total amount, upfront payment of INR 45,00,000 shall
be paid to the Unsecured Financial Creditors (excluding the Related Party)
on the Effective Date and remaining amount will be paid within the Deferred
Page 14 of 57
Payment Period which shall be paid out of cash accruals generated by the
Corporate Debtor during the Deferred Payment Period or by fresh infusion
of money by the Resolution Applicant in the Corporate Debtor.
B.
Statutory Dues
The Resolution Professional has admitted an amount of Rs. 105,62,72,318
of the GST Department and the Resolution Applicant has proposed to pay
an amount of Rs. 46,47,598.
C.
Operational Creditors (Employees/ Workmen)
As per the Information Memorandum and List of Creditors of the Corporate
Debtor no claim was received from the Operational creditors (Employees/
Workmen) therefore, the amount proposed by the resolution Applicant is
NIL
D.
Operational Creditors (other than Workmen and Employees)
The Resolution Professional has admitted an amount of Rs. 11,43,67,341
of Operational Creditors, whereas the Resolution Applicant has proposed to
pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
5.2. Term of the Resolution Plan
The term of the resolution plan will be one year from the effective date, and
the implementation of the plan will commence from the effective date.
5.3. The amounts provided for the stakeholders under the Resolution Plan
as outlined in the revised Form H are as under:
Page 15 of 57
(Amount in Rs. Lakh)
Sl.
No.
Category of
shareholder
Sub -
Category
of
shareholder
Amount
Claimed
Amount
Admitted
Amount
provided
under the
plan
Amount
provided
to
the
amount
claimed
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
Secured
Financial
Creditor
a) Creditors not
having a
right to vote
under sub-
section (2) of
Section 21
b) Other than (a) above (i)who did not vote in favour of the Resolution Plan
(ii) who voted in favour of the Resolution Plan N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Unsecured Financial Creditor a) Creditors not having a right to vote under sub- section (2) of Section 21
b) Other than (a) above (i)who did not vote in favour of the Resolution Plan
(ii) who voted in favour of the Resolution Plan 863.56
N/A
1177.66 863.56
N/A
1177.66 NIL
1121.86 N/A
95.26% Total [(a)+(b)] 2041.22 2041.22 1121.86 54.96%
Page 16 of 57
3 Operational creditors (a)Related Party of Corporate debtor
(b) Other than(a) above:
(i)Government
(ii) Workmen
(iii) Employees
(iv) Others… 147.50
10639.99
NIL
NIL
1085.18
147.50
10562.72
NIL
NIL
996.17 Proportio nate to amount payable to other Operatio nal Creditors
46.48
NIL
NIL
5.00 (Includin g amount payable to Point 3 (a)
0.44%
0.44%
N/A
N/A
0.44%
Total [(a)+(b)]
11872.67 11706.40 51.48 0.44% 4 Other debts and dues _ _ _ _ _
Grand Total
13913.88 13747.61
1173.33 (plus CIRP cost)
The details of compliances made under relevant sections of IBC, 2016
and
IBBI
(Insolvency
Resolution
Process
for
Corporate
Persons)
Regulations, 2016 as stated in the revised Form-H are extracted below:
The compliances of the Resolution Plan is as under:
Section of the Requirement with respect to Clause
of Compliance
Page 17 of 57
Code
/
Regulation
No.
Resolution Plan
Resolution Plan (Yes / No)
25(2)(h)
Whether
the
Resolution
Applicant meets the criteria
approved by the CoC having
regard to the complexity and
scale of operations of the
business of the CD?
Para 3
Yes
Section 29A
Whether
the
Resolution
Applicant is eligible to submit
a resolution plan as per the
final
list
of
Resolution
Professional or Order, if any,
of the Adjudicating Authority?
Para 14.18
Yes
Section 30(1)
Whether
the
Resolution
Applicant has submitted an
affidavit stating that it is
eligible?
Yes
Yes Section 30(2) Whether the Resolution Plan- (a) provides for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs?
(b) provides for the payment to the operational creditors?
(c) provides for the payment to the financial creditors who did not vote in favour of the resolution plan?
(d) provides for the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor?
(e)provides for the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan?
(f) contravenes any of the
5.1.3(a)
5.1.3.(d)
5.1.1.3(e)(iii)
Para 10
Schedule 1
Para 12 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Page 18 of 57
provisions of the law for the time being in force?] No Section 30(4) Whether the Resolution Plan (a) is feasible and viable, according to the CoC?
(b) has been approved by the CoC with 66% voting share?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Section 31(1) Whether the Resolution Plan
has provisions for its effective
implementation
plan,
according to the CoC?
Schedule 1 of
the Plan
Yes
Regulation 38
(1)
Whether the amount due to
the
operational
creditors
under the resolution plan has
been given priority in payment
over financial creditors?
5.1.1.3 (d)(v)
Yes
Regulation 38
(1A)
Whether the resolution plan
includes a statement as to
how it has dealt with the
interests of all stakeholders?
Para 13
Yes
Page 19 of 57
Regulation
38(1B)
(1) Whether the Resolution
Applicant or any of its related
parties
has
failed
to
implement or contributed to
the failure of implementation
of
any
resolution
plan
approved under the Code
(ii) If so, whether the Resolution Applicant has submitted the statement giving details of such non- implementation?]
Para 12
N.A Yes
Yes Regulation 38(2) Whether the Resolution Plan provides:
(a) the term of the plan and its implementation schedule? Schedule 1
(b) for the management and control of the business of the corporate debtor during its term?
(c) adequate means for supervising its implementation?
Schedule 1
Para 10
Para 10
Yes
Yes
Yes 38(3) Whether the resolution plan demonstrates that-
(a) it addresses the cause of default?
(b) it is feasible and viable?
(c) it has provisions for its effective implementation?
(d) it has provisions for approvals required and the
Para 4(a)
Para 4(c)
Schedule 1
Para 6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Page 20 of 57
timeline for the same? (e) the resolution applicant has the capability to implement the resolution plan?
Para 3
Yes
39(2) Whether the RP has filed applications in respect of transactions observed, found or determined by him?
Yes
Regulation
39(4)
Provide details of performance
security received, as referred
to in sub-regulation (4A) of
regulation 36B.]
Yes
6.2. With respect to compliance with Section 29A of the Code, the SRA has submitted an affidavit dated 18.01.2023 stating that it does not suffer from disqualification prescribed under the aforesaid provision. Further, the Applicant/ RP has also submitted an affidavit dated 29.02.2024 stating that based on the aforesaid affidavit submitted by the SRA as well as on the basis of due diligence conducted by the Applicant/ RP, the SRA has been found to be eligible to submit the Resolution Plan. 6.3. With respect to Provident Fund Dues, it has been categorically mentioned by the Applicant/ RP that he has not received any claim with respect to Provident Fund dues. On this issue, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of Employees Provident Fund Organization
Page 21 of 57
Vs. Rajat Mukherjee Liquidator of Enviiro Bulk Handling System Private Limited in Comp App. (AT) (Ins) No. 804 of 2024 in IA No. 2868 of 2024 where in is has been held : “When the entire claim which was filed under 7A and 7Q was paid to the appellant, we fail to see any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the application. It has been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority that claim under Section 14B was assessed by an order dated 16.6.2021 passed after initiation of CIRP proceedings. Adjudicating Authority has noted the judgment of this Tribunal in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vatwa, Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs. Manish Kumar Bhagat in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 808 of 2022 which has rightly been relied upon for not accepting the claim which was subsequent to the initiation of CIRP.”
[Emphasis supplied] Since the Resolution Professional did not receive any PF liability on the date of CIRP initiation, no further directions are required in this regard. 7. Details of Resolution Plan The Resolution Plan Provides for payment as per the table appended hereinafter:
Page 22 of 57
“CIRP cost will be paid on actual basis and additional CIRP
cost incurred from 06.11.2024 till the disposal of resolution
plan application shall be paid by the SRA.”
8.
With respect to GST dues, this Adjudicating Authority has sought
clarification on 27.08.2024 regarding ;
“the position of the inter-se claim of the Operational Creditors,
particularly that the claim of GST. The RP also should clarify
regarding his remark in respect of compliance with the
provisions of Section 30(2)(e) of IBC, 2016. Further, the RP
should make his stand clear as to whether the GST can be
treated as the first charge on the assets of the Corporate
Debtor.”
To the query, the Learned Counsel for the RP submitted his reply in which
the reference has been made on the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the
matter of “Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association vs.
Ashish Chhawchharia RP of Jet Airways India Ltd.” [Company Appeal
Page 23 of 57
(AT) (INS) 752 of 2021], wherein the Hon’ble NCLAT considered Section 82
of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017, which provides as follows:
“Tax to be first charge on property- Notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force,
save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016, any amount payable by a taxable person or any
other person on account of tax, interest or penalty which he is
liable to pay to the Government shall be a first charge on the
property of such taxable person or such person.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
8.1. The Learned Counsel has relied on Para 122 and Para 124 of the said
judgement in which it was also held:
“122. The first charge on the property which is envisaged by
Section 82 is except as provided under Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Thus, Section 82 of the Maharashtra
GST Act, 2017 shall not give any precedence to the charge of
claim of the Appellant. In this context, we may refer to a recent
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sundaresh Bhatt,
Liquidator of ABG Shipyad vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs, 2022 SCC Online SC 1101”. In the above case,
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court submission was raised
relying on Section 142A of the Customs Act. Section 142A has
been extracted in Para 31 of the judgment, which is to the
following effect:
“31. In order to complete the discussion on the Customs Act,
it may be necessary to take note of Section 142A extracted
below:
Page 24 of 57
142A. Liability under Act to be first charge.— Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any Central Act or State
Act, any amount of duty, penalty, interest or any other sum
payable by an assesse or any other person under this Act,
shall, save as otherwise provided in section 529A of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Recovery of Debts Due
to Banks and the Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993),
and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and the Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002)
and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016)
be the first charge on the property of the assesse or the person,
as the case may be..”
124. The provisions of Section 82 of the Maharashtra GST Act,
2017, as extracted above, clearly contains an exception with
regard to I&B Code, hence, on the strength of dues under
Maharashtra GST Act, 2017, no charge can be claimed on the
assets of the Corporate Debtor.
8.2. Reliance is also placed on the Circular No. 187/19/2022 GST dated
27.12.2022 of the Ministry of Finance, which is extracted below for the sake
of discussion:
Circular No. 187/19/2022-GST
F. No. CBIC-20001/2/2022 - GST
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
GST Policy Wing
New Delhi, Dated the 27th December, 2022
To,
Page 25 of 57
The Principal Chief Commissioners / Chief Commissioners / Principal
Commissioners /
Commissioners of Central Tax (All)
The Principal Directors General / Directors General (All)
Madam/Sir,
Subject: Clarification regarding the treatment of statutory dues under GST
law in respect of the taxpayers for whom the proceedings have been
finalised under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- reg.
Attention is invited to Circular No.134/04/2020-GST dated 23rd March, 2020,
wherein it was clarified that no coercive action can be taken against the corporate
debtor with respect to the dues of the period prior to the commencement of
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Such dues will be treated as
‘operational debt’ and the claims may be filed by the proper officer before the
NCLT in accordance with the provisions of the IBC.
2. Representations have been received from the trade as well as tax authorities,
seeking clarification regarding the modalities for implementation of the order of
the adjudicating authority under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the “IBC”) with respect to demand for recovery against
such corporate debtor under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”) as well under the existing laws and the
treatment of such statutory dues under CGST Act and existing laws, after
finalization of the proceedings under IBC.
3. In order to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of the
law across the field formations, the Board, in exercise of its powers conferred
under section 168(1) of the CGST Act, hereby clarifies as follows.
4.1 Section 84 of CGST Act reads as follows:
“Section 84 - Continuation and validation of certain recovery proceedings.-
Where any notice of demand in respect of any tax, penalty, interest or any other
amount payable under this Act, (hereafter in this section referred to as
"Government dues"), is served upon any taxable person or any other person and
any appeal or revision application is filed or any other proceedings is initiated
in respect of such Government dues, then-
..
(b) where such Government dues are reduced in such appeal, revision or in other
proceedings-
(i) it shall not be necessary for the Commissioner to serve upon the taxable
person a fresh notice of demand;
Page 26 of 57
(ii) the Commissioner shall give intimation of such reduction to him and to the appropriate authority with whom recovery proceedings is pending; (iii) any recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of the demand served upon him prior to the disposal of such appeal, revision or other proceedings may be continued in relation to the amount so reduced from the stage at which such proceedings stood immediately before such disposal.”
4.2. As per Section 84 of CGST Act, if the government dues against any person under CGST Act are reduced as a result of any appeal, revision or other proceedings in respect of such government dues, then an intimation for such reduction of government dues has to be given by the Commissioner to such person and to the appropriate authority with whom the recovery proceedings are pending. Further, recovery proceedings can be continued in relation to such reduced amount of government dues.
4.3 The word ‘other proceedings’ is not defined in CGST Act. It is to be mentioned that the adjudicating authorities and appellate authorities under IBC are quasi-judicial authorities constituted to deal with civil disputes pertaining to insolvency and bankruptcy. For instance, under IBC, NCLT serves as an adjudicating authority for insolvency proceedings which are initiated on application from any stakeholder of the entity like the firm, creditors, debtors, employees etc. and passes an order approving the resolution plan. As the proceedings conducted under IBC also adjudicate the government dues pending under the CGST Act or under existing laws against the corporate debtor, the same appear to be covered under the term ‘other proceedings’ in Section 84 of CGST Act.
-
Rule 161 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 prescribes FORM
GST DRC-25 for issuing intimation for such reduction of demand specified under section 84 of CGST Act. Accordingly, in cases where a confirmed demand for recovery has been issued by the tax authorities for which a summary has been issued in FORM GST DRC-07/DRC 07A against the corporate debtor, and where the proceedings have been finalised against the corporate debtor under IBC reducing the amount of statutory dues payable by the corporate debtor to the government under CGST Act or under existing laws, the jurisdictional Commissioner shall issue an intimation in FORM GST DRC-25 reducing such demand, to the taxable person or any other person as well as the appropriate authority with whom recovery proceedings are pending.
-
It is requested that suitable trade notices may be issued to publicize the contents of this circular.
Page 27 of 57 -
Difficulty, if any, in the implementation of the above instructions may please
be brought to the notice of the Board. Hindi version would follow.
(Sanjay Mangal)
Principal Commissioner (GST)
(Emphasis Supplied)
8.3. Ld. counsel for the SRA placed further reliance on the decision of the
Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of “Commercial Tax Department vs. Mrs.
Teena Saraswat Pandey” Company Appeal (AT)(INS) 1265 of 2022,
wherein the provisions of Section 37 of the MVAT Act were held to be
distinguishable from Section 48 of the GVAT Act, and it was held:
“10. We thus are of the view that the Judgement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “Rainbow Paper Limited” relied by Learned
Counsel for the Appellant is distinguishable. The Appellant
having been treated as Operational Creditor allocation of
amount in the Resolution Plan cannot be said to be in violation
of Section 30 (2)(b).”
(Emphasis Supplied)
8.4. The SRA has also submitted an affidavit with respect to the treatment
of inter se claims of the operational creditor, particularly the GST
Department, in which it is stated that:
“4…. the aforesaid Application was listed on 27.08.2024,
wherein this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority was pleased to
direct the Deponent herein to clarify the position of the inter-se
claim of the Operational Creditors, particularly the claim of the
GST Department and therefore, the Deponent is filing the
present Affidavit in compliance of order dated 27.08.2024.
Page 28 of 57
- · It is stated that the matter was listed on 05/09/2024
wherein the SRA has agreed to pay the GST dues in proportion
to whatever is paid to the other Operational Creditors.”
8.5. An affidavit has also been filed by the RP in compliance of the order
dated 27.08.2024, in which he has submitted that:
“Section 82 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017 the legislature has specifically provided for a priority and first charge of the Government however, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has been made an exception to it. Section 82 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“82. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 any amount payable by a taxable person or any other person on account of tax, interest or penalty which he is liable to pay to the Government shall be a first charge on the property of such taxable person or such person”
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 82 of the Central GST Act, 2017 the legislature has
specifically provided for a priority and first charge of the
Government however, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 has been made an exception to it. Section 82 of the
Central GST Act, 2017 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“82. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, any amount payable by a taxable person or any other person on account of tax, interest or penalty which he is liable to pay to the
Page 29 of 57
Government shall be a first charge on the property of such taxable person or such person.”
(Emphasis supplied)
It is further submitted that the claim filed by the GST
Department, North, New Delhi has been admitted by the
Deponent to the extent of Rs. 105.62 Crores in the category of
Operational Creditors (Government Dues) and that the
Successful Resolution Applicant has proposed to pay NIL
amount under the Resolution Plan since the claim of the said
Department cannot be considered as that of “secured creditor”
defined under Section 3(30) of the Code.
8.6. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Swiss Ribbons
Private Limited & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 99 of 2018 and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India
Limited Through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019.
8.7. It is further submitted as under:
12…the
sub-classes
of
Operational
Creditors
(Government/Statutory Dues) and Operational Creditors (Other
Creditors) are so distinctly considered under the Code and are so
entirely differently situated that they qualify as sub-classes which
is apparent from the FORM-H mandated under Regulation 39(4) of
the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations which has separate rows for both of the
sub-class expressly recognizing their distinctness. The relevant
part of FORM-H format is reproduced hereinbelow: -
Page 30 of 57
- In the present case, the successful Resolution Applicant has
clearly provided differential treatment to the differently situated Operational Creditors being GST Department, North, New Delhi in the subclasses of operational Creditors(Government/Statutory Dues) with an admitted claim of Rs. 105.62 Crores and subclass of Operational Creditors (Other Creditors) with an admitted claim of Rs. 11.44 Crores based on an intelligible differentia and the CoC in their commercial wisdom, after considering the feasibility and viability of the plan, has approved the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant with 100% voting share in their 7th
meeting held on 01.07.2023.”
8.8. Having considered that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in its circular dated December 27, 2022, classifies GST dues as "Operational Debt," and in view of the judicial precedents cited in the foregoing paragraphs, this Tribunal finds no irregularity in the classification of the claim of the GST Department as that of an "Operational Creditor" in the Resolution Plan.
Page 31 of 57
Furthermore, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) has filed an affidavit dated September 11, 2024, wherein it has been expressly affirmed that the claim of the GST Department shall be treated on par with other operational creditors. Additionally, an addendum dated November 17, 2024, placed on record by the SRA, clarifies that, in ensuring parity among operational creditors, the GST Department, being an operational creditor, shall receive payment in proportion to other operational creditors. It is noted that the Resolution Professional has admitted claims amounting to ₹11.44 crores from creditors categorized as Operational Creditors. The Resolution Applicant has proposed a corpus of ₹5,00,000, constituting 0.44% of the admitted claims. In proportion, the GST Department is accordingly being paid 0.44% of its admitted claim, amounting to ₹46,47,598.19, against the total claim of ₹1,05,62,72,318. This fact has been affirmed before this Tribunal by way of an affidavit dated September 11, 2024. The relevant portion of the affidavit is as follows: "6. The resolution professional has admitted claims totalling to Rs. 11.44 Crores form creditors categorized as Operation Creditors (Other Creditors). The Deponent has proposed a corpus of Rs. 5,00,000/-, representing approximately 0.44% of the admitted claims,to be distributed on a pro-rata basis among these Operational Creditors. 7. It is further submitted that the admitted claim of the GST Department, North Delhi, amounts to Rs.1,05,62,72,318.00p. In line with the payment of 0.44% to other Operational
Page 32 of 57
Creditors, we are prepared to pay a corresponding amount of Rs.46,47,598.19.00p to the GST Department, North Delhi."
It is evident from the records that an affidavit has been filed by the Resolution Professional on behalf of PG Advertising Private Limited (formerly known as Prabhatam Advertising Private Limited) clarifying the remarks in Form-H with respect to compliance under Section 30(2)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This affidavit has been submitted in pursuance of the order dated August 27, 2024, passed by this Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority. Upon perusal, it is observed that the Resolution Plan has been confirmed to be in compliance with the provisions of the Code and the Regulations framed thereunder, particularly Section 30(2)(e) of the Code. It has been affirmed that the Resolution Plan does not contravene any provisions of the law in force at the relevant time. 10. As per the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant approved by the Committee of Creditors, the SRA has undertaken that any amount realized on account of the PUFE Application in pursuant to Sections 43, 45, 49, 50 and 66 filed with this Adjudicating Authority shall be deemed to have been received for the benefit of the Corporate Debtor/Resolution Applicant/ the Resulting Companies and the same shall be pursued by the Corporate Debtor Resolution Applicant/ the Resulting Companies at their own cost. At this juncture, it will be apt to refer to the judgement of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Page 33 of 57
Court in the matter of: Tata Steel BSL Limited v. Venus Recruiter Private Limited & ors (2023) ibclaw.in 09 HC 89 “e. The provisions pertaining to suspect transactions exist specifically to benefit the creditors of the corporate debtor by enhancing the asset pool available for resolution of the corporate debtor. The IBC also envisages increasing credit availability in the country as one of its primary objectives.It is apposite that any kind of benefit acquired from the adjudication of avoidance applications, in cases where treatment of such applications could not be accounted in the plan, must be given to the creditors of the erstwhile corporate debtor, considering especially, that in the present case, the creditors took a massive haircut towards resolution of the corporate debtor. Giving such benefit to the creditors is in consonance with the scheme of the IBC. f. The amount that is made available after transactions are avoided cannot go to the kitty of the resolution applicant. The benefit arising out of the adjudication of the avoidance application is not for the corporate debtor in its new avatar since it does not continue as a debtor and has gone through the process of resolution. This amount should be made available to the creditors who are primarily financial institutions and have taken a haircut in agreeing to accept a lesser amount than what was due and payable to them. (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the judgement as above, the proceeds of the avoidance transaction are directed to be distributed among the financial creditors including the
Page 34 of 57
financial institution and the financial creditors are directed to pursue the
avoidance applications after the approval of the Resolution plan.
11. Scheme of Restructuring and Sources of Funds:
The Resolution Plan provides for the scheme for restructuring and the
sources of funds for implementation of the Resolution Plan, which is
extracted below for reference:
Page 35 of 57
The details of the implementation schedule of the plan are mentioned in Part B of the Resolution Plan, which reads as follows:
Page 36 of 57
Page 37 of 57
Page 38 of 57
Page 39 of 57
The details of the Management and Control of the business of the corporate debtor is stated under Clause 10 of the Resolution Plan. As per Regulation 38(4) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, the CoC may consider the requirement of a Monitoring Committee for the implementation of the plan. In this respect, clause 10 of the plan states that from the date of approval of plan by this Tribunal and till the Effective Date (“Monitoring Period”), a Monitoring Committee shall be constituted for monitoring and supervising the implementation of the resolution plan. It is also stated in the plan that the Monitoring Committee shall consist of 5 members comprising 2 representatives of the Resolution Applicant, 2 representatives of the financial creditors and the Monitoring Agent. The excerpt of the clause 10 reads thus: -
Page 40 of 57
Page 41 of 57
Page 42 of 57
Page 43 of 57
Page 44 of 57
Page 45 of 57
As can be seen from Clause 7 of the certificate given by the RP on prescribed form viz. Form H, the SRA has proposed to pay much less than the amount admitted by the RP and the Liquidation value, to the different stakeholders. We are, however, conscious of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Vallal RCK vs. M/s Siva Industries and Holdings Limited and Others, (Civil Appeal Nos. 1811-1812 of 2022) and Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3224 of 2020) wherein the Hon’ble Court ruled that the scope of examination of the application for approval of Resolution Plan by this Tribunal is confined to the provisions of Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016. Para 153 of the Judgment reads thus: - “153. Regulation 38(3) mandates that a Resolution Plan be feasible, viable and implementable with specific timelines. A Resolution Plan whose implementation can be withdrawn at the behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, is inherently unviable, since open-ended clauses on
Page 46 of 57
modifications/withdrawal would mean that the Plan could fail at an undefined stage, be uncertain, including after approval by the Adjudicating Authority. It is inconsistent to postulate, on the one hand, that no withdrawal or modification is permitted after the approval by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31, irrespective of the terms of the Resolution Plan; and on the other hand, to argue that the terms of the Resolution Plan relating to withdrawal or modification must be respected, in spite of the CoC’s approval, but prior to the approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The former position follows from the intent, object and purpose of the IBC and from Section 31, and the latter is disavowed by the IBC’s structure and objective. The IBC does not envisage a dichotomy in the binding character of the Resolution Plan in relation to a Resolution Applicant between the stage of approval by the CoC and the approval of the Adjudicating Authority. The binding nature of a Resolution Plan on a Resolution Applicant, who is the proponent of the Plan which has been accepted by the CoC cannot remain indeterminate at the discretion of the Resolution Applicant. The negotiations between the Resolution Applicant and the CoC are brought to an end after the CoC’s approval. The only conditionality that remains is the approval of the Adjudicating Authority, which has a limited jurisdiction to confirm or deny the legal validity of the Resolution Plan in terms of Section 30 (2) of the IBC. If the requirements of Section 30(2) are satisfied, the Adjudicating Authority shall confirm the Plan approved by the CoC under Section 31(1) of the IBC.”
The Applicant/RP has also filed on record, the proof of the Performance Guarantee worth Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only)
Page 47 of 57
deposited by the SRA vide RTGS Mode. The Bank Statements in respect of
the same have been placed on record.
16.
Besides, we note that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited
Through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. [Civil
Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019], it is the subject matter of commercial wisdom
of CoC to take decision regarding the amount of bid offered by SRA and the
scope for this Tribunal to interfere on such issues is negligible. The above
view was also reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ebix Singapore
Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions
Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3224 of 2020) wherein the Hon’ble Court
ruled that the scope of examination of the application for approval of
Resolution Plan by this Tribunal is confined to the provisions of Section
30(2) of IBC, 2016. Para 153 of the Judgment reads thus: -
“153. Regulation 38(3) mandates that a Resolution Plan be
feasible, viable and implementable with specific timelines. A
Resolution Plan whose implementation can be withdrawn at the
behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, is inherently
unviable,
since
open-ended
clauses
on
modifications/withdrawal would mean that the Plan could fail
at an undefined stage, be uncertain, including after approval
by the Adjudicating Authority. It is inconsistent to postulate, on
the one hand, that no withdrawal or modification is permitted
after the approval by the Adjudicating Authority under Section
31, irrespective of the terms of the Resolution Plan; and on the
other hand, to argue that the terms of the Resolution Plan
Page 48 of 57
relating to withdrawal or modification must be respected, in spite of the CoC’s approval, but prior to the approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The former position follows from the intent, object and purpose of the IBC and from Section 31, and the latter is disavowed by the IBC’s structure and objective. The IBC does not envisage a dichotomy in the binding character of the Resolution Plan in relation to a Resolution Applicant between the stage of approval by the CoC and the approval of the Adjudicating Authority. The binding nature of a Resolution Plan on a Resolution Applicant, who is the proponent of the Plan which has been accepted by the CoC cannot remain indeterminate at the discretion of the Resolution Applicant. The negotiations between the Resolution Applicant and the CoC are brought to an end after the CoC’s approval. The only conditionality that remains is the approval of the Adjudicating Authority, which has a limited jurisdiction to confirm or deny the legal validity of the Resolution Plan in terms of Section 30 (2) of the IBC. If the requirements of Section 30(2) are satisfied, the Adjudicating Authority shall confirm the Plan approved by the CoC under Section 31(1) of the IBC.” 17. As far as the issue of reliefs and concessions which fall in the jurisdiction of different Government Authorities, and/ or are subjected to the provisions of different laws for the time being in force are concerned, it is made clear that the amount payable by the SRA in terms of the plan to different creditors, stakeholders, and to keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern cannot be subject to any condition, assumptions, relief/ concessions and/ or qualification. It also needs to be underlined that the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC, 2016 mandates the Resolution Applicant to obtain the necessary approval required under any law for the time being
Page 49 of 57
in force within a period of one year from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IBC, 2016. In terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Code even during the period of CIRP, no default in payment of current dues is a precondition for continuation of the License, Permit, Registration and similar rights. Thus, even during the moratorium period, some of the facilities forming part of the reliefs and concessions sought are made available to the CD only when there is no default in payment of the current dues. On approval of the Resolution Plan, the SRA/CD cannot be put on a better footing by exempting it from paying its legitimate dues under the law. For the sake of convenience, the explanation below Section 14 of the code is extracted below: “14. Moratorium. – (1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely: - (a) ….. (b) ….. (c) ….. (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in
Page 50 of 57
any other law for the time being in force, a licence, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period;” (Emphasis Supplied) 18. In any case, in terms of the provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC 2016 read with Regulations 6, 6A, 7, 8, 8A, 9 and 9A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, all the claimants such as Operational Creditors, Financial Creditors, Creditors in Class, Workmen and Employees and other Creditors can raise their claims before the IRP/RP. The claims are dealt with by IRP in terms of the provisions of Section 18(1)(b) of the IBC, 2016 and by RP in terms of the provisions of Section 25(1)(b) thereof read with Regulations 12A, 13 and 14 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Thereafter, the RP prepares an Information Memorandum in terms of the provisions of Regulation 36(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Memorandum contains inter alia a list of creditors containing the range of creditors, the amounts claimed by them, the amount of their claim admitted and the security interest if any in respect of such claims. As has
Page 51 of 57
been provided in Regulation 36(1) of the Regulations (ibid), the Information Memorandum is required to be submitted in electronic form to each member of CoC, on or before 95th day from the Insolvency commencement date. As has been provided in Regulation 36A of the Regulations the RP publish brief particulars of the invitation for Expression of Interest in Form G of Schedule I to the Regulations at the earliest i.e. not later than 60th day from the Insolvency commencement date, from interested and eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants to submit Resolution Plans. As can be seen from Regulation 36B of the Regulations, the RP shall issue Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix (IMEM) and request for Resolution Plans, within 5 days of the date of issue of provisional list of eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants (required to be issued under Regulation 36A(10) of the Regulations). It is with reference to such Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix that the RP issues request for Resolution Plan. The request for Resolution Plan details each step in the process and the manner and purposes of interaction between the Resolution Professional and the Prospective Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Plan submitted after consideration of the IMEM and RFRP is then examined by the Committee of Creditors. Nevertheless, it needs to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 37 and 38 of the extant Regulations. Once the plan is approved by the CoC, in terms of the provisions of Regulations 39 of the aforementioned Regulations, it virtually becomes a contract entered into between the CD represented through RP, SRA and the Creditors of the CD. On being approved by this Adjudicating Authority, by operation of Section 31(1) of
Page 52 of 57
the Code, the plan becomes binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors (including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being enforced such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. Thus, Section 31(1) of IBC, 2016, takes care of most of the relief/concession/waiver solicited by the Resolution Applicant. 19. Besides, in terms of the provisions of Section 32A, for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the liability of the CD ceases and the CD is not liable to be prosecuted from the date of approval of Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority, if the Resolution Plan results in change of management or control of the CD to a person who was not promotor or in the management or control of the CD or a related party of such a person or a person with regard to whom the concerned Investigating Agency has reason to believe that he had abated or conspired for the commission of the offence and has submitted or filed a report or a complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court. In such cases, where the prosecution is instituted against the CD, during CIRP, the CD stands discharged qua the same from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan. Nevertheless, every person who was a designated partner as defined in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, “an officer who is in default” as defined in Clause (60) of Section 2 of Companies Act, 2013 or was in any
Page 53 of 57
manner in charge of, or responsible to the CD for the conduct of his
business or associated with the CD in any manner and was directly or
indirectly involved in the commission of an offence as per the report
submitted or complaint filed by Investigating Agency shall continue to be
liable to be prosecuted and punished for such an offence committed by the
Corporate Debtor notwithstanding the Corporate Debtors’ liability ceases
after approval of the plan.
20.
In this context, a reference is made to the decision of Hon’ble NCLAT
in Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. Vivek Raheja and Anr. [Company Appeal
(AT) (Insolvency) No. 827 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2994 of 2024] dated 30.04.2024
wherein a challenge was laid against the following observation of the NCLT:
“16. However, the resolution plan shall not be construed as
waiver to any statutory obligations/liabilities arising out of the
approved resolution plan and the same shall be dealt in
accordance with the appropriate authorities concerned as per
relevant laws. We are of the considered view that if any waiver
is sought in the resolution plan, the same shall be subject to
approval by the concerned authorities. The same view has
been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam
Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset
Reconstruction Company Limited and Embassy Property
Development case (supra).”
The Hon’ble NCLAT, however, dismissed the Appeal with the following
observation:
“Adjudicating Authority has already referred to the Judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghanshyam
Page 54 of 57
Mishra & Sons Private Limited’ Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited’, in Civil Appeal No.8129 of 2019, which clearly laid down that all claims which have not been dealt in the Resolution Plan does not survive after the approval of Resolution Plan. 6. Insofar as statutory waivers and concessions, Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that SRA to file appropriate necessary application before the necessary Forum/Authority in order to avail the relief and the concession. 7. The Resolution Plan having been approved it is always open for the Applicant to make an appropriate application before the Statutory Authority for grant of such relief as permissible after approval of the Resolution Plan. 8. It goes without saying that all past liabilities which are not dealt with in the Resolution Plan stand extinguished by view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam
Mishra & Sons Private Limited’ (Supra) which is a well settled
law.”
21.
In the wake of the provisions of Section 32A(2), no action is taken
against the property of the Corporate Debtor in relation to an offence
committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process of the CD, where such property is covered under
Resolution Plan approved by this Authority under Section 31, which result
in the change in the control of the CD to a person who was not a promoter
or in the management or control of the Corporate Debtor or related party of
such person or a person with regard to whom the Investigating Agency has
reason to believe that he had abated or conspired for commission of the
Page 55 of 57
offence and has submitted or filed a report or complaint to the relevant
statutory authority or Court.
22.
The action against the property of the Corporate Debtor as referred
to in Section 32A of the Code includes the attachment, seizure, retention or
confiscation under such law as may be applicable to the Corporate Debtor.
One may also be not oblivious of the fact that in the backdrop of provisions
of Section 31(3)(a) of the IBC, 2016, the moratorium order passed by the
Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 ceases to have effect. In sum and
substance,
the
SRA/CD
would
be
entitled
to
no
other
relief/concession/waiver except those, which are available to it as per the
provisions of Section 31(1) and 32A of IBC, 2016.
23.
In the sequel to the above, we are inclined to approve the Resolution
Plan as approved/recommended by the CoC as placed by the Applicant
before this Adjudicating Authority. We, therefore, allow the present
Application and approve the COC-approved Resolution Plan as placed
before us by the Applicant/RP with the following directions: -
i.
The approved Resolution Plan shall become effective from the date
of passing of this Order and shall be implemented strictly as per the
term of the plan and implementation schedule given in the Plan;
ii.
The
SRA/CD
would
be
entitled
to
no
other
reliefs/
concessions/waivers except those are available/permissible to it as
per the provisions of Section 31(1) and 32A of IBC, 2016. The SRA
Page 56 of 57
is at liberty to approach the relevant authorities who would consider
these claims as per the provisions of the relevant law in
an expeditious manner;
iii.
Following steps would be taken in terms of the resolution plan: -
SL. NO.
STEP TO BE TAKEN
TIMELINE
1.
Constitution of Monitoring
Committee
On the Date of
Approval of Plan
2.
Payment of CIRP Cost
Effective Date
3.
Payment of upfront committed
amount to Financial Creditors
and Operational Creditor to all
the Creditors in accordance with
the Plan
Effective Date
4.
Payment to the operational
creditors (as defined in the Code)
in accordance with the terms of
this Plan or the Liquidation Value
allocated to the operational
creditors, whichever is higher
before any payment is made to
Financial Creditors.
Effective Date
5.
Payment of Deferred Amount to
creditors in terms of this Plan
Effective Date
iv.
The order of the moratorium in respect to the corporate debtor
passed by this Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the IBC,
2016 shall cease to have effect from the date of passing of this Order;
v.
The SRA shall act in terms of the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC
2016;
vi.
The Monitoring Committee shall file progress report regarding
implementation of the Plan before this Tribunal, every month;
vii.
The RP shall forward all the records relating to the conduct of the
Page 57 of 57
CIRP and the Resolution Plan to the IBBI for its record and database;
viii.
The RP shall also forthwith send a copy of this order to the
participants and the Resolution Applicant. He would also send a
copy of this order to the ROC concerned within 15 days of this order;
ix.
The RP shall intimate each claimant about the principle or formulae,
as the case may be, for payment of debts under the Plan;
24.
The Court Officer and Resolution Professional (RP) shall forthwith
make available/send a copy of this Order to the CoC and the Successful
Resolution Applicant (SRA) for immediate necessary compliance.
25.
A copy of this order shall also be sent by the Court Officer and
Applicant to the IBBI for their records.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(SUBRATA KUMAR DASH) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ)
MEMBER (T)
MEMBER (J)
Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.
No analysis has been generated for this document yet.