Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- Shri Sai Priya Sugars Ltd. had filed Resolution Plan. It is claimed that Company Appeal (AT) No.971 of 2020 the Resolution Plan contemplated payment of Rs.60 Crores out of which Rs.54.25 Crores were proposed to be paid to all Secured Creditors on the basis of all Secured Financial Creditors relinquishing their respective securities. The amount of Rs.54.25 Crores was to be distributed between Secured Financial Creditors based on their voting share in COC. The Appellant was proposed to be paid only Rs.6.61 Crores as against admitted amount of Rs.69.48 Crores. Appellant claims that such distribution between Financial Creditors was fraud as it did not take into consideration that Appellant's dues were secured by means of equitable first charge with co-lenders, by way of mortgage over properties of Respondent No.4. The Resolution Plan treated all lenders equally ignoring the fact that the Appellant along with Syndicate Bank, Andhra Bank and Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company held first and prior pari passu charge over the assets of Respondent No.4. Thus, the Appellant is finding fault with the Resolution Plan proposing:

distribution on the basis of voting share held in COC rather than;
distribution in the ratio of first pari passu charge held by the Appellant along with other co-lenders.

3. Parties have filed their pleadings. We have also heard Counsel for both the sides. The claim of the Appellant is and it has been argued that the Resolution Professional could not have put up before COC the Resolution Plan tendered by Respondent No.3 as the same violated Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 where it proposed to pay the Company Appeal (AT) No.971 of 2020 Secured Financial Creditors Rs.54.25 Crores and that the distribution would be pro rata in terms of the voting percentage of each Secured Financial Creditor. The learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to para

6. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Resolution Plan should be stayed as the distribution of proceeds as provided in the Resolution Plan is not on first pari passu charge basis.

7. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 - Resolution Professional referred to Reply (Diary No.23847) which is filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 and submitted that the Appellant was part of COC and throughout participated in the proceedings and till passing of the Resolution Plan, never objected to the distribution as was proposed in the Resolution Plan. The learned Counsel referred to Annexure -5 - Page 49 of his Reply where there are minutes of the 9th COC meeting dated 26.02.2020. The Appellant was present through its Chief Manager - Shri Darpan Garg (Sl. No.8) in the deliberations with regard to the Resolution Plan. The learned Counsel specifically referred to the following from the Minutes:-