Skip to main content

NCLT Approves Resolution Plan Approved By 66.67% Of Creditors In Value

The National Company Law Tribunal, Bench at Hyderabad in the matter of K. Sashidhar versus Kamineni Steel & Power India Private Limited , vide its order dated Nov. 27, 2017, has approved the resolution plan which was approved by only 66.67 percent of the committee of creditors in value. As per Section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a resolution plan can be approved by the Committee of Creditors by not less than 75 percent of the total voting share.

Vide an order of the Hyderabad NCLT, dated Feb. 10, 2017, a corporate insolvency resolution process under the code was initiated under Section 10 of the code and an interim resolution professional was appointed thereto, who was directed to constitute a Committee of Creditors. Pursuant to constitution of the CoC, comprising of eight financial creditors, a total of nine meetings of the CoC were held. The insolvency resolution process could not get completed in the mandatory period of 180 days, and an extension of 90 days was therefore granted by the Hyderabad NCLT.

At the ninth meeting of the CoC held on Oct. 27, 2017, a resolution plan was presented by the resolution professional which was approved by the members of the CoC having 55.73 percent voting power. One of the members, Indian Overseas Bank having voting power of 15.15 percent rejected the resolution plan. Further, the members of the CoC having voting power of 29.12 percent expressed that they remained open, awaiting the principle approval from their respective sanctioning authorities.
As on Oct. 30, 2017, the percentage of consenting member of CoC for approval of the resolution plan was 66.67 percent, the percentage of dissenting members of the CoC was 26.97 percent, and the percentage of the neutral members, who remained open until seeking principle approval from their respective sanction authorities was 6.36 percent.

Various resolution plans were submitted from time to time as per the advice and discussions by the financial creditors at various meetings of the CoC. In spite of which, no concrete resolution plan had emerged from the financial creditors. On the other hand, the resolution plan proposed under sustainable debt option did not intend any haircut on the principle debt to the banks. In the light of the same, the resolution professional submitted that he had followed all the extant provisions of the Code in respect of the resolution process in question and therefore, the resolution plan was in accordance with law and that it may be approved by the Hyderabad NCLT.

The Hyderabad NCLT observed that the main preamble of the Code is the resolution of a corporate debtor rather than the liquidation, and that in the instant case, the stringent stand of the three dissenting members of the CoC clearly showed that they did not exhibit positive approach in revival of the corporate debtor and were mostly interested in the liquidation of the corporate debtor.

It was further observed that the salient features of the Code are resolution of corporates in a time bound manner, maximisation of value of assets, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit, balance of interest of stakeholders, etc. and when the decisions are taken in a time bound manner, there is a greater chance that the corporate debtor can be saved as a going concern and the productive resources of such corporate debtor, including the labour and capital, can be put to best use.

Upon analysing the provisions of the Code, the Hyderabad NCLT further observed that Section 30(4) 
states that the committee of creditors may approve the resolution plan by a vote of not less than 75 percent of voting shares of the financial creditors and, Section 31 of the Code states that “if the adjudicating authority is satisfied”. Therefore, the Hyderabad NCLT took a considered view that even though the committee of creditors may approve a resolution plan with not less than 75 percent of the voting share, a discretion is given to the NCLT to approve the resolution plan.

Therefore, the Hyderabad NCLT further observed that a paramount duty is cast upon the adjudicating authority, while approving a resolution plan to exercise judicious mind in facts and circumstances to specific case, to consider the spirit of the Code and to grant due consideration for the socioeconomic benefit/cause, etc., and therefore, the prescribed percentage of 75 percent need not be strictly interpreted.

In the light of the factual matrix of the case, the Hyderabad NCLT on being satisfied that the resolution professional had followed all the extant provisions of the Code in respect of the resolution process and that the resolution plan contained all mandatory clauses, held that there were no grounds for rejection of the resolution plan, and accepted the same even though it was not approved by 75 percent of the prescribed majority of the members of the CoC.

Interestingly, before parting with the order, the Hyderabad NCLT expressed its views for appropriate guidelines/instructions in insolvency process that the three dissenting banks, namely, the Indian Overseas Bank, Central Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra, in resolving the bad loans or non-performing assets deserved to be carefully scrutinised by the banking sector regulator. Therefore it further directed the registry to forward a copy of the said order to the Governor of Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.

Article referred: https://www.bloombergquint.com/opinion/2017/12/08/nclt-approves-resolution-plan-approved-by-6667-of-creditors-in-value

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more