9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1604 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - Jurisdiction - power of Resolution professional to reject the claim - HELD THAT - Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court in SWISS RIBBONS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT wherein also the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the Resolution Professional has no jurisdiction to decide the claim but the Liquidator has a jurisdiction to decide such claim at the time of liquidation - However such question is not required to be decided in the present appeal the plan having approved. The decision of the Resolution Professional does not amount to rejection of the claim but determination of claim for constitution of the Committee of Creditors which was constituted on the basis of original claim. Thereafter the Appellant being member of the Committee of Creditors not raised the issue immediately but after about 250 days. In the circumstances no relief can be granted. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Rejection of application for enhancing claim by Resolution Professional 2. Jurisdiction of Resolution Professional to reject claim 3. Applicability of previous judgments on Resolution Professional's jurisdiction Issue 1: Rejection of application for enhancing claim by Resolution Professional The case involved the 'Bank of Baroda' as the Financial Creditor filing a claim during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which was initially allowed by the Resolution Professional. Subsequently, the Bank of Baroda filed an application to enhance the claim after 250 days, which was not entertained by the Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application as the Resolution Plan had already been approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the application for enhancement was not maintainable after the plan had been approved. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Resolution Professional to reject claim The Appellant contended that the Revision of Claim was based on record and the Resolution Professional failed to consider it. The Appellant argued that the Resolution Professional had no jurisdiction to reject the claim. The Appellate Tribunal referred to a previous judgment and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to clarify that the Resolution Professional's role was to determine the claim for the constitution of the Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal emphasized that the Resolution Professional's decision did not amount to rejection of the claim, and the Appellant, being a member of the Committee of Creditors, did not raise the issue promptly. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that no relief could be granted at that stage. Issue 3: Applicability of previous judgments on Resolution Professional's jurisdiction The Appellant cited a previous judgment and a Supreme Court case to argue about the Resolution Professional's jurisdiction to decide the claim. The Tribunal acknowledged the precedents but clarified that such a question was not necessary to decide in the present appeal since the Resolution Plan had already been approved. The Tribunal highlighted that the Resolution Professional's decision was for the constitution of the Committee of Creditors and that the Appellant's delay in raising the issue hindered granting any relief. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant could seek appropriate relief from the appropriate forum despite the dismissal of the appeal. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind the decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.
|
