NCLAT Dismisses Fixed Depositors' Appeal Terming It Premature
The depositors would be at liberty to challenge the same once the fate of the disputed Resolution Plan is decided by NCLT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed an appeal filed against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad wherein the claim of the Appellant that the debt payable to the Fixed Deposit holders cannot be reduced or varied or extinguished by way of a Resolution Plan, was rejected.
The Principal Bench of the NCLAT comprising Justice A.I.S. Cheema and Dr Alok Srivastava dealt with this matter titled Dr Anees Ahmad And Ors. v Amit Jain (Resolution Professional) And Ors.
The facts leading up to this appeal were that the Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for the Corporate Debtor – M/s Neesa Leisure Limited, placed before the NCLT, is currently pending. The Appellants – Fixed Depositors filed an application before the NCLT, claiming that the Resolution Plan placed before CoC, was filed and cleared by the Respondent – Resolution Professional, was not in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 read with applicable Rules. This present appeal was filed by the Appellants – Fixed Depositors since the NCLT rejected their application.
The Appellants contended that the debt payable to the Fixed Deposit holders cannot be reduced or varied or extinguished by way of a Resolution Plan and that the voting done on the Resolution Plan before the CoC was also incorrect. It was also claimed by the Appellants that u/S 30(2)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Respondent – Resolution Professional could not have put the Resolution Plan itself before the CoC because the Resolution Plan which curtailed the amounts of the Fixed Deposit holders, was in contravention of the Companies Act. The Respondent submitted that the NCLT has heard the parties with regards to the Resolution Plan and the same is yet to be decided.
The bench after going through the materials on record observed that this issue should have been decided by the NCLT along with the Resolution Plan which is still being considered before the NCLT. It noted that the NCLT is yet to accept or reject the Resolution Plan.
It was concluded by the bench that the Appellants would be at liberty to challenge the issue about Fixed Deposit when the NCLT decides whether to accept or reject the Resolution Plan.
The Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the present agitation was premature.