COB Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Gupta Infra Private Limit
CS Professional · Insolvency - Law and Practice · PYQS · December 2024
COB Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Gupta Infra Private Limited (GIPL). The said application was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority (AA) during October, 2018 and a Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Following is the financial position of GIPL as on the date of commencement of the CIRP: Liabilities Amount in ₹ Crores Assets Amount in ₹ Crores Share Capital - Equity 100.00 Fixed Assets - Land and Building 115.00 Share Capital - Redeemable Preference Shares 75.00 Fixed Assets - Plant and Machinery 165.00 Share Capital - Convertible Preference Shares 25.00 Other Fixed Assets 70.00 Debentures (Unsecured fully convertible) 50.00 Investments in Subsidiaries 50.00 Long Term Borrowings - Fully Secured 300.00 Inventories 150.00 Short Term Borrowings - Unsecured 75.00 Receivables 110.00 Loan from Related Parties 25.00 Cash and Bank Balances 15.00 Payables 65.00 Other Current Assets 25.00 Provisions 35.00 Accumulated Losses 100.00 Deferred Tax Liabilities 15.00 Other Current Liabilities 35.00 Total Liabilities 800.00 Total Assets 800.00 Other Additional information provided by the Corporate Debtor: [Amounts stated in the table above can be treated as claims made by each of the parties in their respective category]. Other Current Liabilities include: In Crores Workmen Wages Payable for 36 months 9.00 Salary Payable for 20 months 100.00 PF Liabilities 3.80 Sales Tax/Commercial Taxes Due * 4.80 Other Statutory Dues 2.40 * On the sales tax and commercial taxes due, the Commercial Tax Authorities have already attached one of the immovable properties of the Corporate Debtor valued at ₹3.50 crores. Fixed Assets includes buildings occupied on long term lease for a period of 75 years obtained from the State Industrial Development Authority (SIDA) for ₹5 Crores. SIDA has also submitted their claim with the RP stating that their premium amount along with interest and penal interest is due for since last 7 years. SIDA has filed its claim as a Financial Creditor. Whereas, the Resolution Professional has requested SIDA to submit their claim as an Operational Creditor. (This amount is included in Other Current Liabilities). Further, it was informed by the Resolution Professional that the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Gupta Infra Private Limited, who initiated a CIRP against one of its Operational Creditor, namely C-Digital Arts Private Ltd for ₹6 Crores and going forward, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has already ordered for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). However, one of the suspended Director on the Board of C-Digital Arts Private Limited filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) stating that there was no notice given as required under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 5 of the insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 which entails that for initiation of insolvency resolution process by an Operational Creditor, a demand notice has to be served by the unpaid Operational Debtor on the Corporate Creditor. Nevertheless, the aforesaid suspended director he has not denied the debts due. This matter is pending before NCLAT for disposal. Investments includes investment in Foreign Subsidiary of ₹30 Crores and in an Indian Subsidiary of ₹18 Crores and Investment in shares amounting to ₹2 Crores in another company incorporated and registered with charitable objects and not for profit. Inventories and Receivables realisable only for 80% of its value. Loan from related parties is from wife and son of one Director of GIPL. Other Current Assets includes ₹10 Crores paid to National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) towards a bid amount for a road project. Other Current Assets includes ₹2 Crores of assets of third party held under Trust. Machinery, the carrying value of which is ₹1.50 crores belonging to an Indian Subsidiary is lying in one of the Units of the Corporate Debtor. A Machinery which was acquired for dispatching to the Foreign Subsidiary is also lying in the factory premises of the Corporate Debtor having a carrying value of ₹3 crores. Cranes worth ₹5 Crores belonging to a proprietorship concern of one of the Director is also lying the Factory premises of the Corporate Debtor. CIRP costs payable including all expenses is ₹2 Crores. The Security Interest charged for COB Bank is 91.25% and SID Bank is 8.75%. (both the financial creditors have not relinquished their security interest). During the CIRP, in one of the Meeting of the 'Committee of Creditors' (CoC), Resolution Plans were discussed. Revised Resolution Plans were submitted by the prospective Resolution Applicants. Resolution Plan was put to e-Vote and by majority of 94.79%, the Resolution Plan of 'GIPL' was approved. The Resolution plan proposes for utilisation of all assets including the assets under lease. Further, the Resolution Professional has sent a letter to the Commercial Taxes Authorities to release the property attached by them and on the contrary, the Authorities informed that the Department will get their portion as per the proposed Resolution Plan. One of the Financial Creditor (SID Bank) sent an objection with respect to the distribution of the proceeds of the resolution plan under the Resolution Plan. SID Bank also filed seeking direction to the Resolution Professional to distribute the proceeds of the Resolution Plan and made the following prayers: "It is most respectfully prayed that: 1. The present application may kindly be allowed and the directions be issued to the Respondent No. 1 to modify/clarify the distribution to dissenting members as per the Resolution Plan and distribute the proceeds of the resolution plan to the Applicant SID Bank, for an amount of ₹8.97 Crores in priority in accordance with provisions of IBC, 2016 in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Interim stay be granted on distribution of the resolution plan amount by the Resolution Professional to the Committee of Creditors till the present application is decided." The case of the Appellant, namely SID Bank in the Application was that, as per the security interest of the Appellant, the Appellant is entitled to 8.75% i.e. the amount of ₹8.97 Crores and as per voting share as approved by the CoC, the Appellant is entitled to 5.21% i.e., ₹5.34 Crores. The case of the Appellant SID Bank set up in the Application is that he is entitled for his distribution of plan amount as per value of the security interest of the Appellant. The Application was objected by the Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority, by its Order, upheld the decision of the CoC for distribution of proceeds of the Resolution Plan as per the voting share. The Appellant, aggrieved by the said Order, has come up with the Appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). In the light of the above case study inputs and referring to the decisions of applicable case laws with reasons and the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) and the Regulations made thereunder, answer the following questions: Explain in the light of the decided case laws, whether the claim made by SID Bank regarding distribution proceeds of the resolution plan based on the security interest is correct and whether SID Bank will succeed in its appeal with NCLAT?
Answer & Explanation:
The facts of the question are similar to the case of Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) v. Vivek Raheja, RP, Gupta Exim (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. decided on September 16, 2022, where the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held as follows: Section 53(1)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (the Code) uses the expression "debts owed to a secured creditor" which is the basis for distribution in the order of priority as provided in Section 53(1)(ii). The debt owed to a secured creditor is a debt which is relatable to his claim as admitted in the CIRP Process. The claim/debt of a secured financial creditor which is admitted in CIRP Process is a fixed amount determined in the CIRP process as reflected in the Information Memorandum prepared by the Resolution Professional. The debt owed to a secured creditor is not the value of security of a secured creditor. Section 53(1) does not contemplate distribution as per value of security of a secured creditor. The submission of the Appellant that he is entitled to distribution of the proceeds of the plan value as per value of security possessed by him is not in accordance with the legislative scheme as delineated in Section 53(1) of the Code. The above issue has also been decided by this Appellate Tribunal in Union Bank of India Vs. Resolution Professional of M/s Kudos Chemie Ltd. & Ors. In the above case also, the Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor has filed an application seeking direction to distribute the resolution plan amount as per value of the security of the Appellant. The CoC has decided to distribute the amount as per amount accepted by the Resolution Professional. The CoC decision was challenged before the Adjudicating Authority who rejected the Application against which the Appeal was filed. The views of the Adjudicating Authority for distribution of plan amount as per voting share found approval by this Tribunal. When we look into above statement of objects and reasons, it is made clear that financial creditors who do not vote in favour of the resolution plan shall receive an amount that is not less than the liquidation value of their debt. The above statement of objects and reasons also makes it clear that the entitlement of dissenting financial creditor is to receive liquidation value of their debt and not the distribution as per their security value as is sought to be contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant before us. The statement of objects and reasons by which amendments in Section 30(2)(b) has been made makes it clear that entitlement of dissenting financial creditor is the liquidation value of their debt which also clearly negate the submissions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant before us. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1-Resolution Professional refuting the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that manner of distribution of the proceeds of the plan value is in accordance with Section 30(2)(b) of the Code. The Appellant is entitled for distribution as per value of the debt of the Appellant. There is no entitlement to claim distribution on the basis of value of security interest of the Appellant according to the provisions of Section 30(2)(b) of the Code. None of the submissions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has any substance. In result, the Appeal is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid decisions of NCLAT, the SID Bank in the given case will not succeed in its appeal.
Topics: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
Related Questions in this Topic
- Mr. V. Ramaswamy is former Director of Corporate Debtor namely M/s Narmada Project Limited an application field with Res...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. K Sridhar and Mr. K. Murali are the Directors of M/s S & M Engineering Enterprises Limited (SMEEL). Unfortunately, b...