2018 (10) TMI 1799 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of appeal - initiation of CIRP - money due and payable by the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT - The applicant has filed this application, under Section 60(5) of the IBC, R/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules requesting the Tribunal to recieve documents shown at Sl. Nos. 3 to 7 as per the running index of the Application. The documents are filed for the purpose of considering the case of Applicant. The Application is filed to receive the documents filed herewith. The genuineness or otherwise of the documents are matter to be considered at the time of deciding the Application. Application allowed.

Issues:
1. Application filed by Mahal Hotels Private Limited against Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, Koteshwara Rao Karuchola, and Viceroy Hotels Limited.
2. Admittance of CP (IB) No. 219/7/HDB/2017 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
3. Permission sought by the Applicant to file documents in CA No. 250 of 2018 and CA No. 294 of 2018.
4. Claims filed by the applicant under a Business Transfer Agreement.
5. Allegations raised by ARCIL against the claim of the Applicant.
6. Allegation of 'Time-barred debt' raised by ARCIL.
7. Submission of Independent Auditor's Report by the Applicant for the years 2016 and 2017.
8. Importance of documents for the Applicant's case.
9. Denial and dispute of contents of the Application by the Respondent.
10. Tribunal's decision on the application to receive documents.

Analysis:

1. The application was filed by Mahal Hotels Private Limited against Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL), Koteshwara Rao Karuchola (Resolution Professional), and Viceroy Hotels Limited. The purpose of the application was to address issues related to claims made under a Business Transfer Agreement.

2. The CP (IB) No. 219/7/HDB/2017 was admitted under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process against the Corporate Debtor. The interim resolution professional was appointed by the Tribunal as per the order dated 12.03.2017.

3. The Applicant sought permission to file documents in CA No. 250 of 2018 and CA No. 294 of 2018 to support their claims. These documents were crucial for the resolution of the case and were requested to be included in the record.

4. Claims were made by the applicant and its associate companies under a Business Transfer Agreement, which were verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional. The inclusion of the Applicant in the CoC led to a reduction in ARCIL's controlling stake, prompting ARCIL to raise allegations against the claim without involving the Applicant.

5. ARCIL raised various allegations against the claim of the Applicant, leading to the filing of CA No. 250 of 2018 and CA No. 294 of 2018. The Applicant was not made a party to these proceedings, and ARCIL challenged the claims made by the Applicant and other creditors.

6. ARCIL alleged that the claim filed by the Applicant was a 'Time-barred debt,' which the Applicant refuted by citing correspondence with the Corporate Debtor as evidence to support the legitimacy of the claim.

7. The Applicant submitted Independent Auditor's Reports for the years 2016 and 2017 as additional material to support their evidence, highlighting the money due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant.

8. Emphasizing the importance of the documents for their case, the Applicant stated that crucial evidence would be excluded from consideration if the documents were not received, potentially causing irreparable loss and injury to their legitimate rights and interests.

9. The Respondent denied and disputed all contents of the Application, alleging that the additional documents annexed were fabricated solely to counter their legal contentions. They challenged the veracity and relevance of the documents submitted by the Applicant.

10. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, allowed the application filed by the Applicant under Section 60(5) of the IBC, R/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, to receive the documents for consideration in the case. The genuineness and relevance of the documents were to be determined at the time of deciding the main application, and the documents were received subject to proof and relevancy.

← Previous Next →