Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.47 seconds)Section 53 in Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
Section 3 in Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [Entire Act]
Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Small Industries Development Bank Of ... vs Vivek Raheja Resolution Professional ... on 16 September, 2022
16. Section 3, sub-section (6) defines the 'claim', which claim is to be
filed by a Financial Creditor as per Regulation 8, sub-section (1) of the CIRP
Regulations, 2016. Thus, the scheme of Section 53, sub-section (1), clearly
indicates distribution as per the debt and in the legislative scheme there is
no scope of distribution of assets among the Financial Creditors as per
security interest. The issue which has been raised by the Appellant, came
for consideration before this Tribunal in Small Industries Development
Bank of India vs. Vivek Raheja and Ors. where also the Appellant had
claimed distribution of assets as per security interest. An IA was filed by
the Appellant (SIDBI), seeking a direction to distribute as per security
interest. In paragraph 2, following case of the SIDBI has been noticed:
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jaypee Kensington Boulevard ... vs Nbcc (India) Ltd on 24 March, 2021
20. The issue raised in the Appeal, is fully covered by the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in India
Resurgence ARC Private Ltd. (supra) also referred to its earlier judgment
in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v.
NBCC (India) Ltd. while coming to the conclusion.
M/S Vistra Itcl (India) Limited vs Dinkar Venkatasubramanian on 4 May, 2023
21. The learned Counsel for the Appellant during his submissions has
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vistra ITCL (India)
Ltd. and Ors. vs. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian and Anr. - (2023) 7
SCC 324. There are several distinguishable facts in the judgment of Vistra
ITCL (India) Ltd. and in the present case. In the case of Vistra, the claim
of Financial Creditor was not admitted. Whereas in the present case the
debt of the Appellant was admitted. In Vistra, the claim of Vistara to be
secured creditor was rejected as has been noticed in paragraphs 2 to 10 of
the judgment itself. Whereas, the Appellant in the present case has been
recognized as a dissenting Financial Creditor and was part of the CoC and
in the present case, the CoC by its decision has approved both the
distribution mechanism as well as the Resolution Plan, which proposed
distribution based on proportion of admitted claim. Vistra was never
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.405 of 2023 25
treated as secured creditor or given its minimum entitlement as secured
creditor as per Section 53(1). The judgment of Vistra is a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is referable to Article 142 of the
Constitution, which jurisdiction was exercised and ultimately the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held Vistra to be a secured creditor. The present is a
case where ICICI Bank was accepted and recognized as Financial Creditor
and its full claim was accepted and distribution to the Appellant was as per
Section 30, sub-section (2)(b) of the IBC.