9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1585 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCondonation of delay in filing their claims and direct the Resolution Professional to admit the claims of the Applicants - section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with rule 11 of NCLT Rules - whether claims after completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be allowed and admitted by the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor? HELD THAT - In the present case, it is clear that there is a failure on part of the Applicant in filing the claim against the Corporate Debtor to the Resolution Professional. On pursual of documents annexed in counter it is clear that the Respondent has performed his duty and the public notice was issued for calling of claims. The Resolution Professional is nowhere liable to issue personal notice to the Creditors of the Company. Thus, the contention of the Applicant that Resolution Professional did not inform about submitting the claim is vague. At present the stage of the main Petition is that it is pending for Approval of Resolution Plan by this Tribunal and the CIRP Proceedings have come to an end. Thus, by virtue of this fact it is viewed by us that the present application cannot be allowed - Application dismissed.
Issues:
Delay in filing claims against Corporate Debtor after completion of CIRP. Analysis: 1. The Operational Creditor filed an application seeking relief to condone the delay in filing their claims against the Corporate Debtor under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Applicant claimed they were unaware of the initiation of the CIRP due to lack of communication and information. 2. The Resolution Professional countered the Applicant's claims, stating that the CIRP had been completed with a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. The Respondent highlighted that the Applicant failed to submit their claim within the stipulated time frame and even after being requested to do so by the Resolution Professional. 3. The Resolution Professional provided detailed timelines and actions taken during the CIRP process, including the issuance of public announcements, formation of the Committee of Creditors, and approval of the Resolution Plan. The Respondent emphasized that the Applicant's claim was time-barred and lacked proper submission as per regulations. 4. The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments and examined the rules and regulations under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It was concluded that claims by the Resolution Professional can only be admitted within 90 days from the start of CIRP proceedings, upon proper submission in prescribed formats. 5. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had failed to file their claim within the specified period despite reminders from the Resolution Professional. It was noted that the Resolution Professional had fulfilled obligations by issuing public notices for claim submissions, and personal notices to creditors were not mandated. 6. As the CIRP had concluded, and the Resolution Plan approval was pending, the Tribunal deemed the Applicant's application untimely and not permissible at the current stage. Considering all aspects, rules, and the status of the case, the application for condonation of delay in filing claims was dismissed. 7. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's application, emphasizing the importance of adherence to timelines and prescribed procedures under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the resolution process.
|
