The Corporate Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2019.11.08 180404 IST Reason Insolvency Resolution Process CIRP was initiated against M s. Rave Scans Private Limited hereafter the Corporate Debtor under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 IBC or the Code for short .
The reference herein was to the unamended Regulation 38, pertaining to the mandatory companytents of a resolution plan.
The remarks companyumn in the resolution plan showed that the plan was based on Maintained liquidation value LV under Regulation 38 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016.
The CIRP was initiated on 25th January, 2017 against the Corporate Debtor under Section 10 of the IBC.
The second respondent, M s Hero Fincorp Ltd. hereafter the Financial Creditor or Hero appealed against the NCLTs order on grounds of discrimination between financial creditors, which resulted in the NCLAT modifying the NCLTs final order.
This resolution plan was challenged before the NCLAT by the second respondent in the present appeal, Hero Fincorp Ltd. as being discriminatory.
Against the said amount, the appellant offered 54 crores to revive the Corporate Debtor in terms of the resolution plan.
Company Appeal AT Insolvency No.
526 of 2018 and Binani Industries Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda Anr.,
Hero, who had dissented with the resolution plan, had been provided with 32.34 of its admitted claim, whereas other financial creditors had been provided with 45 of their admitted claims.
Discrimination was alleged on the ground that the secured financial creditors were provided with a higher percentage of their claim amounts however, Hero had been allowed a lesser percentage of its admitted claim.
The facts of the case are as follows.
The appellant was the resolution applicant of the Corporate Debtor, whose liquidation value was ascertained as 36 crores.
The resolution plan was then revised and the revised resolution plan submitted by the appellant was approved by the adjudicating authority, i.e., the Principal Bench of the NCLT.
RAVINDRA BHAT, J. The resolution applicant hereafter the appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the National Company Law Appellate Board hereafter NCLAT in regard to its directions modifying a resolution plan accepted by the adjudicating authority i.e. National Company Law Tribunal, hereafter NCLT Signature Not Verified or the adjudicating authority .
The revised resolution plan submitted by the appellant was approved by the NCLT on 17th October, 2018.
The NCLAT in its impugned order which set aside the NCLTs directions and required the appellant to increase the liquidation value of the offer to Hero, relied on Central Bank of India v. Resolution Professional of the Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Ors.,
