Important IBC Judgments by the NCLAT (9 July 2021)

  July 11, 2021

Chennai Bench

Valuation Report Only to Assist the CoC in Taking a Commercial Decision: Dr Vijay Radhakrishnan v. CS Bijoy P Pulipra, RP PVS Memorial Hospital Pvt Ltd

The Appellant was a consultant doctor at the Corporate Debtor hospital, and sought the rejection of the recommended resolution plan and of the valuation report by the RP.

The grievance was that as per the approved resolution plan, the employee doctors would have got 99.29% of their admitted claim, whereas consultant doctors would have only got 2.34% of their admitted claim, in spite of their similar job roles. He also alleged discrepancies in the valuation report of the approved resolution plan, and a variance of 15.62% with their valuation report. The Respondent placed reliance on the Maharashtra Seamless Limited v Padmanabhan Venkatesh and Ors., where the Supreme Court held that a valuation report is to assist the CoC to take a decision and there is a statutory mandate that the bid of the resolution applicant should match the liquidation value.

The Appellate Tribunal clarified that the difference in valuation report pointed out by the Appellant was not significant to call for fresh valuation. It held that the consultant doctors were not entitled to regular employee benefits and could not be equated to employee doctors; therefore there had been no discrimination. The Tribunal found no reasons to interfere and affirmed the impugned order.

~ By Manikanda Prabhu J

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

“In adherence to the rules and regulations of Bar Council of India, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Institute of Cost Accountants of India and any other professional bodies (whether mentioned or not herein), this website has been designed only for the purposes of circulation and exchange of information, and not for advertising.
Your use of’s services are completely at your own risk. Readers and subscribers should seek proper advice from an expert professional before acting on the information mentioned herein. The content on this website is general information and none of the information contained on the website is in the nature of a legal opinion, or otherwise amounts to any legal advice. The user is requested to use their judgment, and exchange of any such information shall be solely at the user’s risk. does not take responsibility for the actions of any member registered on the site, and is not accountable for any decision taken by the reader based on information/commitment provided by the registered member(s). By clicking ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided on the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation, and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.”