Assenting Financial Creditors are entitled for payment as proposed in Resolution Plan and Dissenting Financial Creditor is entitled as the minimum amount prescribed in Section 30(2)(b) of IBC – Peter Beck and Partner Vermoegensverwaltung GMBH Vs. Sharon Bio-medicine Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi
In this case, Appellant, a dissenting Financial Creditor has submitted that there cannot be any discrimination in the payment to the unsecured Financial Creditors on the basis of their ‘assent’ and ‘dissent’. The legislative history of the IBC and the amendments made therein indicate that legislature never intended any discrimination between one class of Financial Creditor. Liquidation value in the present case is nil.
NCLAT held that:
(i) The statute clearly contemplates that minimum payment to such creditor who do not vote in favour of the Resolution Plan as payable to such creditor in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 53 in the event of a liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
(ii) The priority in payment is a different aspect than the amount to which the creditor who does not vote in favour of the plan is entitled.
(iii) The submission of the Appellant that there cannot be any discrimination with the payment to unsecured financial creditors who did not vote in favour of the plan and those who voted in favour of the plan cannot be accepted.
(iv) Assenting financial creditors entitled for payment as proposed in the plan and dissenting financial creditor is entitled as per the minimum entitlement as per Section 30(2)(b).
