Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 891 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyNon-filing of claim by appellant despite public announcement as well as the intimation through email to Insolvency Professional - It is the case of the Appellant that they were neither intimated nor were they aware about the fact that the last date of submission of claim has expired - HELD THAT - In the instant case the Resolution Plan was approved by 91.02% of the Members of CoC and is pending approval before the Adjudicating Authority and was last listed for hearing on 16.06.2021. The literal language of Section 12 mandates strict adherence to the time frame it lays down. Time and again, the Hon ble Supreme Court in 2017 (9) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT has noted that the model timelines provided in Regulation 40A of the CIRP Regulations should be followed as closely as possible - In this case, on account of lockdown and pandemic the last date was extended from 31.03.2020 to 16.08.2020 to facilitate all creditors to file their claims. In the background of this factual matrix, we hold that the delay/latches are on behalf of the Appellant and there is no dereliction of duty on behalf of the IRP/PR. The Resolution Professional was not duty bound to collate claims which are belatedly received after the last date thereby delaying the entire CIRP which is a time bound process and further having regard to the fact that the claim of the Appellant was incorporated in the Information Memorandum which was circulated to the Prospective Resolution Applicant and the Members of the Committee of Creditors for their consideration, there is no dereliction of duty on behalf of the IRP/RP as provided for under Sections 18 and 21(1) of the Code. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of Filing Claims 2. Duties of the Resolution Professional 3. Adherence to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Timelines 4. Impact of Delayed Claims on the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) 5. Extinguishment of Claims Not Included in the Resolution Plan Detailed Analysis: 1. Timeliness of Filing Claims: The Appellant, the Deputy Commissioner, Central GST, Ahmedabad South, filed a claim on 04.09.2020, beyond the stipulated time and extended period. The original deadline was 31.03.2020, extended to 16.08.2020 due to the Covid-19 lockdown. The claim was rejected as it was submitted 19 days late. The Appellant argued that they were not aware of the deadline, but the Tribunal noted that the Appellant was informed via email on 28.07.2020 about the CIRP and the deadline. 2. Duties of the Resolution Professional: The Appellant contended that the Resolution Professional (RP) failed to perform duties under Section 21(1) of the IBC by not including their claim. However, the Tribunal found that the RP had acted diligently, issuing public announcements and extending deadlines as required. The RP incorporated the Appellant's claim in the Information Memorandum for consideration by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). 3. Adherence to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Timelines: The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the timelines under the IBC. The CIRP must be completed within a specified period to ensure the value of the debtor's assets is maximized. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Ebix Singapore Private Limited' which stressed the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines to avoid delays and ensure the efficiency of the insolvency process. 4. Impact of Delayed Claims on the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP): Allowing delayed claims could disrupt the CIRP, causing delays and potentially leading to the failure of Resolution Plans already submitted. The Tribunal noted that the RP had to make corrections in the Information Utility and stakeholders list, which could further delay the CIRP. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited' which held that claims not part of the Resolution Plan stand extinguished once the plan is approved. 5. Extinguishment of Claims Not Included in the Resolution Plan: The Tribunal reiterated that once a Resolution Plan is approved, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Director General of Income Tax Vs. Synergies Dooray Automotive Ltd.' which held that statutory claims not included in the Resolution Plan cannot be pursued post-approval. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the RP was not obligated to include belated claims, and there was no dereliction of duty. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the timelines under the IBC to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the insolvency resolution process. The Resolution Plan, approved by 91.02% of the CoC, was pending approval before the Adjudicating Authority, and the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the process.
|