# In the matter of Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund Vs. Bijay Murmuria, Resolution Professional & Ors. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1187 of 2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-12-19. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00004. The appeal was filed by 'Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund' (SASF), a financial creditor,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 19 Dec 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00004
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/stressed-assets-stabilization-fund-vs-bijay-murmuria-resolution-professional-ors-a1932d07

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by 'Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund' (SASF), a financial creditor, against an order dated September 27, 2019, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, regarding the corporate insolvency resolution process of 'Fort Gloster Industries Ltd.' The NCLT had disposed of several applications, including one preferred by the Appellant, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The resolution plan submitted by 'Gloster Limited' was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in its meeting on April 24, 2019. The Resolution Professional then filed the approved resolution plan before the Adjudicating Authority for approval under Section 31 of the I&B Code. The Appellant raised objections,

…

## Facts

The 'Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund' (SASF) filed an appeal against the NCLT's order approving a resolution plan for 'Fort Gloster Industries Ltd.' The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against 'Fort Gloster Industries Ltd.' The resolution plan, submitted by 'Gloster Limited', was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on April 24, 2019. The Appellant raised objections, claiming the plan violated Section 30(2) of the I&B Code by not being equitable and non-discriminatory. SASF claimed to be a first charge holder, but the Adjudicating Authority found no evidence of this. The Resolution Professional argued that the Appellant was seeking preferential treatment despite dissenting in the CoC meetings. The average liquidation value of

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the resolution plan approved by the NCLT violates Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and …

**Ratio:** Section 30(2) of the I&B Code mandates that a resolution plan must meet certain

…

**Reasoning:** The court found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any violation of Section 30(2)

…

**Interpretation:** Section 30(2) is interpreted to ensure fairness and equity in the distribution

…

**Application:** The Appellant's claim that the resolution plan violated Section 30(2) was

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Stressed Assets…
- **Respondents:** Fort Gloster…; Bijay Mur…

## Timeline

- **2019-04-24 — CoC Meet…**: The Committee of Creditors approved the…
- **2019-09-27 — NCLT Ord…**: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, passed an order disposing of…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/stressed-assets-stabilization-fund-vs-bijay-murmuria-resolution-professional-ors-a1932d07