Page 77 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] ULTRA TECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 291
Ultra Tech was approved unanimously and it was declared to be the successful
resolution applicant. The resolution plan dealt with the dues of all the creditors
equitably and was superior in terms of recovery to the banks and other creditors
as compared to the losses which all the creditors would have suffered in case the
company had gone into liquidation.
3. It may be mentioned here that while considering the resolution plan,
the NCLT duly approved proportion/distribution of the payment to be made by
the petitioner-company to all the creditors. The resolution professional collated
claims of all operational creditors after following the due process of law and with
due diligence, verified the claim of the respondent Goods and Services Tax De-
partment to the extent of Rs. 72.85 crores towards liabilities of excise duty and
Service Tax. The resolution professional, also determined that liquidation value
of the Binani Cement was Rs. 2300 crores which was much less than the out-
standing debt and thus, the liquidation value available to the operational credi-
tors including the respondent revenue would be zero.
4. It may be mentioned here that as per the admitted comparative anal-
ysis available on record, if the company had gone into liquidation, the operation-
al creditors would have been deprived of any chance of recovery as their share in
the liquidated assets has been assessed as nil in this situation. Be that as it may.
5. The resolution plan was approved by the National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘NCLAT’ for brevity) vide
order dated 14-11-2018 passed in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No.
188/2018. The Bank of Baroda being a Financial Creditor challenged the resolu-
tion plan affirmed by the NCLAT before Hon’ble the Supreme Court which af-
firmed the order of the NCLAT vide order dated 19-11-2018 passed in Civil Ap-
peal No. 10998/2018.
6. Pursuant to receiving this final seal of approval of the resolution
plan, the petitioner Ultra Tech took over the management and operations of
Binani Cement Ltd. and the name of the company was changed to Ultra Tech
Nathdwara Cement Ltd. The resolution plan was fully implemented and pay-
ments in its terms were duly made to all the creditors including the statutory
creditors.
7. Despite the resolution plan having attained finality and having been
executed, the respondents herein have raised numerous demands from the peti-
tioner for the period from April, 2012 to June, 2017 and interest upto 25-7-2017.
Having made the full and final payment as proposed by the resolution profes-
sional, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 26-11-2018 to the respondents in-
forming them of the payment of dues as admitted by the CIRP and reminded
them that all remaining claims and proceedings stood extinguished in terms of
the resolution plan. Having failed to get any positive response from the respond-
ents, the petitioner company has approached this Court through this writ peti-
tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief referred to
supra.
8. Shri Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Arnab Roy and
Ms. Aditi Vaishnav for Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner
company urged that the IBC is a special law, which has been ordained for the
purpose of bringing out an industry from distress and to ensure that its assets do
not go to waste by liquidation. He contended that the resolution plan submitted
by the resolution professional attained finality after approval by the COC and
cannot be questioned in a Court of Law. It was further submitted that the Finan-
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  77