He also disputed Mehta’s contention that the 3 NCLT members who considered the repayment plan had delivered completely divergent opinions.
Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Sharma had both favoured approval of the repayment plan and had agreed on the eligibility issue under Section 79 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Patra argued. According to him, they differed primarily over the treatment of dissenting creditors.
Bhardwaj had proposed that the plan should operate against creditors who supported it, while allowing dissenting lenders to pursue other remedies for recovery. Sharma, however, held that the plan would bind all creditors, whether assenting or dissenting, under Section 115 of the IBC.
“Both are equally on the same page as far as Section 79 is concerned on eligibility. Therefore, to say all these issues have to be re-litigated is completely wrong,” Patra submitted.