2019 (7) TMI 1688 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Application for change of status of applicant New Okhla Industrial Development Authority - HELD THAT - Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) has already been considered as a Financial Creditor and the Resolution Professional has already submitted the report. Now it is not open to any of the Authority to change the status of NOIDA from the Financial Creditor to any other type of Creditors . However the Interim Resolution Professional is already directed to examine the claim of the NOIDA who is the Applicant before the Adjudicating Authority and no final decision has been taken and the Adjudicating Authority has made it clear that the claim of the NOIDA cannot be rejected on the ground that it is time barred or the claim is by an entity other than the financial Creditor . No opinion expressed - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Consideration of claim by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) as a 'Financial Creditor'
2. Interpretation of provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 in relation to the claim
3. Direction to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to examine the claim of NOIDA

Analysis:

1. Consideration of claim by NOIDA as a 'Financial Creditor':
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) as a 'Financial Creditor' in the insolvency proceedings of 'M/s. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd.' The Adjudicating Authority had directed the IRP to examine NOIDA's claim and not reject it based on being time-barred or by an entity other than a financial creditor. The appellant argued that NOIDA had already been considered a financial creditor, and the Resolution Professional had submitted a report. The Tribunal noted that while the IRP was directed to examine NOIDA's claim, no final decision had been made. The Tribunal refrained from expressing an opinion, leaving the option open for any aggrieved party to approach the appropriate forum or appellate tribunal in case of a contrary decision by the Adjudicating Authority.

2. Interpretation of provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 in relation to NOIDA's claim. It was highlighted that the piece of land allotted by NOIDA was under the first charge, leading to the application of a 12-year limitation period under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, rather than the standard 3-year limitation period under Article 137. The argument regarding the nature of the lease provided by NOIDA and its classification as a financial lease under Indian Accounting Standards was also addressed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the IRP to consider NOIDA's claim without rejecting it on the grounds of being time-barred or not qualifying as a financial creditor.

3. Direction to the Interim Resolution Professional to examine NOIDA's claim:
The Tribunal's order primarily focused on directing the IRP to examine NOIDA's claim in the insolvency proceedings. It emphasized that the claim should not be rejected based on being time-barred or on the grounds of not meeting the criteria of a financial creditor. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a fair consideration of NOIDA's claim without prejudging its classification or status in the insolvency process. The appeal was disposed of with the directive for the IRP to conduct a thorough examination of NOIDA's claim, maintaining fairness and adherence to the provisions of the insolvency laws.