Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction to direct modifications of claims provided for in the Resolution Plan once the Plan is approved – Paramvir Singh Tiwana Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The issue raised by the Appellant/Operational Creditors in these Appeals that there is discrimination between the class of Creditors and that GMADA was paid 100% of the amount in the Books of the Corporate Debtor, though they did not prefer any claim, while the Appellants were given only 25% of the claim amounts which is in violation of Section 30(2)(b) & (e) of the Code.

Related Posts:

If any Public depositor applies showing due of the debt claiming itself as operational creditor and the Resolution Professional or the Tribunal do not accept the claim on the ground that they are not financial creditor, we allow the appellant to raise the question before the Tribunal and if any adverse decision is given by the Tribunal, it will be open to the appellant to raise the issue before NCLAT- Hind Motors India Ltd. Vs. Adjudicating Authority NCLT, Chandigarh – NCLAT New Delhi

IBC-Case Laws-NCLAT
Scroll to Top