Limitation on the extent of the amount receivable by a dissenting financial creditor is innate u/s 30(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

The Supreme Court has ruled that the limitation on the amount receivable by a dissenting financial creditor is an inherent part of Section 30(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). This means dissenting creditors cannot necessarily expect to receive the full value of their security interest if a resolution plan is approved. The court's decision prioritises the overall resolution and revival of the corporate debtor over individual creditor recovery.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1700 OF 2021

INDIA RESURGENCE ARC PRIVATE LIMITED … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

M/S. AMIT METALIKS LIMITED & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G E M E N T

1. By way of this appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , the appellant India Resurgence ARC Private Limited seeks to question the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in CA(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1061 of 2020, whereby the Appellate Authority rejected its challenge to the order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in approval of resolution plan in the corporate insolvency resolution process concerning the corporate debtor VSP Udyog Private Limited (respondent No. 2 herein), as submitted by the resolution applicant Amit Metaliks Limited (respondent No. 1 herein).

2. The appellant company is said to be the assignee of the rights, title and interest carried by Religare Finvest Limited as secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor, having 3.94% of voting share in the Committee of Creditors.

3. When the resolution plan submitted by the respondent No. 1 was taken up for consideration by the CoC, the appellant expressed reservations on the share being proposed, particularly with reference to the value of the security interest held by it; and chose to remain a dissentient financial creditor. The dissention on the part of the appellant and response thereto by the resolution professional as also by other members of CoC was noted in the 14th meeting of CoC dated 31.07.2020 in the following words: -

“Representative from Religare Finvest/India Resurgence ARC, Mr Shakti inquired about the lower share they are getting as per Resolution Plan whereas the security interest held by them is far more. He also raised question about the fair market value and liquidation value of the CD. On this the RP informed him that the valuation exercise has been done by registered valuers of IBBI who were appointed by the erstwhile IRP and he do not find any inconsistency in the same. Other members also agreed on the same. Mr Shakti then raised the point that in the present scenario it will be better for them if the company goes into Liquidation and they will realize their security interest by exercising option u/s 52(1)(b). The RP then replied that Liquidation option may be beneficial to one creditor but is definitely detrimental to other secured lenders who are having majority stake of around 96%. Further the RP also said that the objective of IBC is resolution and revival of a distressed company and is not a recovery procedure.”

To know more in details find the attachment file