Bhatia Coke and Energy Ltd.

Resolution Professional is ‘Occupier’ of Corporate Debtor’s factory as defined under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 | For the violation or omission in the factory premises, Resolution Professional is responsible for the proceedings if any, initiated against Resolution Professional under Factories Act in his capacity as Occupier | The said proceedings will not be covered under Sec. 14 or 233 of IBC – Subrata Monindranath Maity v. The State – Madras High Court

In this landmark judgment, Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that:
(i) The protection to the resolution professional given under Section 233 of IBC is obviously only in respect of act done or intended to be done in good faith under the code. The failure or omission to provide safety measures in the factory cannot be stretched to inaction.
(ii) The resolution professional is the occupier of the factory (as defined under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948) and he cannot abdicate his duties and responsibility of providing necessary safety measures in the factory as mandated in the Factories Act.
(iii) The expression used in section 17 of the Code explicitly say that the resolution professional is the person who is vested with absolute control of the Corporate Debtor company. While so, for the violation or omission in the factory premises, Resolution Professional is responsible for the Proceedings if any, initiated against Resolution Professional under the Factories Act in his capacity as occupier. The said proceedings will not be covered under section 14 or 233 of the Code.

Resolution Professional is ‘Occupier’ of Corporate Debtor’s factory as defined under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 | For the violation or omission in the factory premises, Resolution Professional is responsible for the proceedings if any, initiated against Resolution Professional under Factories Act in his capacity as Occupier | The said proceedings will not be covered under Sec. 14 or 233 of IBC – Subrata Monindranath Maity v. The State – Madras High Court Read Post »

Unless a Resolution Applicant is able to provide additional information falling under CIRP Regulation 36A(9) as sought by the Resolution Professional, it cannot be said that the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant is in compliance with Section 30(1) of IBC, 2016 – Rare Asset Reconstruction Ltd. Vs. Mr. Subrata M Maity RP of M/s Bhatia Coke and Energy Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Unless a Resolution Applicant is able to provide additional information falling under CIRP Regulation 36A(9) as sought by the Resolution Professional, it cannot be said that the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant is in compliance with Section 30(1) of IBC, 2016 – Rare Asset Reconstruction Ltd. Vs. Mr. Subrata M Maity RP of M/s Bhatia Coke and Energy Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

A Creditor having voted in favour of the Resolution Plan is estopped from filing an application before NCLT, there is no such provision under IBC to vote “under protest” – State Bank of India Vs. Subrata M Maity – NCLT Chennai Bench

NCLT held that there must be an absolute clarity from the CoC members, whether to vote for or against the resolution plan and there should never be any ambiguity on the viability of the plan and if the Applicant had any doubts about the viability of the plan, the only option available to the Applicant herein is to vote against the plan, when a complete decision of approval of the plan has been given to the CoC, the CoC members have to exercise their commercial wisdom with an absolute clarity.
The argument of the Applicant Counsel is that the voting was done “under protest” to avoid a liquidation order is not acceptable. Further, there is no provision under the IBC for the Applicant to vote “under protest”.
We cannot allow the CoC members who have acted in favour of the resolution plan, and subsequently come up with another new “commercial wisdom” regarding the viability of the plan and the procedural lapses of the RP. The Applicant having voted in favour of the resolution plan is estopped from filing this application seeking the abovementioned directions.
The issues raised by the Applicant regarding the procedural irregularities in the conduct of the CoC meeting and about the RP are not addressed at this stage.

A Creditor having voted in favour of the Resolution Plan is estopped from filing an application before NCLT, there is no such provision under IBC to vote “under protest” – State Bank of India Vs. Subrata M Maity – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Police concerned shall also give necessary protection to the Resolution Professional, his team and his family – Subrata Monindranath Maity (Bhatia Coke and Energy Ltd) Vs. Surender Singh Bhatia & 4 Ors – NCLT Chennai Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Police concerned shall also give necessary protection to the Resolution Professional, his team and his family – Subrata Monindranath Maity (Bhatia Coke and Energy Ltd) Vs. Surender Singh Bhatia & 4 Ors – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top