2018 (12) TMI 1833 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Directions against the Resolution Professional to accept the Petitioner/Non-Applicant s Proof of Claim - HELD THAT - From the very fact stated in the Petition that the resolution plan has already been approved by the CoC after approval of the resolution plan the Resolution professional does not have any power to entertain any claim submitted by any of the creditors. It is to be made clear that after approval of the resolution plan by the CoC Code provides the approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. It has been further informed by the applicant that Resolution Professional has applied for the approval of the Adjudication Authority which is pending before this Bench. At this stage no such direction can be given to the Resolution professional for accepting the claim of the applicant. There is no provision in the Code which permits that after approval of the resolution plan by the CoC Resolution professional is authorised to accept any claim from any of the creditors - Therefore application filed by the Financial Creditor/Non applicant is not maintainable at this stage hence rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for directions against the Resolution Professional to accept Proof of Claim.
2. Maintainability of the application after approval of the resolution plan by the CoC.
3. Objections against the resolution plan and the process to be followed.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to an application filed by a financial creditor, seeking directions against the Resolution Professional to accept its Proof of Claim. The creditor was unaware of the public announcement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution process before October 2018, thus could not submit the proof of claim as per the regulations. The Resolution Professional, after the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), expressed inability to accept the creditor's claim, citing the provisions of the Code. The creditor contended that the Resolution Professional should have considered the claim under the relevant regulations and circulars of IBBI, highlighting the Professional's authority to make interim estimates of claims and revise them later. However, the Tribunal held that after the CoC's approval of the resolution plan, the Resolution Professional lacks the power to entertain any new claims from creditors. Therefore, the application was deemed not maintainable at that stage and rejected.

2. The second issue addresses the maintainability of the application after the CoC's approval of the resolution plan. The Tribunal emphasized that post the CoC's approval, the Code mandates the approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Resolution Professional had applied for such approval, which was pending before the Bench. The Tribunal clarified that there is no provision in the Code allowing the Resolution Professional to accept claims from creditors after the CoC's approval of the resolution plan. Consequently, the application filed by the Financial Creditor was considered not maintainable at that juncture and was rejected.

3. The final issue involves objections against the resolution plan, as reflected in applications MA 1361/2018 and MA 1362/2018. The Tribunal directed the office to list the objections raised by the applicants alongside the Resolution Professional's submissions. Applicants were instructed to serve copies of their objections on the Resolution Professional within three days, enabling the Professional to file a reply within 15 days, with an advance copy to the opposing party. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on 6.12.2018 to address the objections against the resolution plan comprehensively.