9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1286 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyIssuance of Direction to the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor to accept the claim in full filed by the Applicants - Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 2016 - whether the Resolution Professional has rightly revised the claim of the Applicant to the tune of ₹ 15,75,279/-? - HELD THAT - The provisions of the Code along with IBBI regulations, make it obligatory on part of IRP/RP to collate, verify and admit such claims of the creditors as are duly supported by appropriate evidence along with proper record in books of account of a corporate debtor. Therefore, the IRP/RP can always ask for such information/documents/evidence from creditors as is considered necessary for the purpose of verification/substantiation of the claims. In the instant case, the petitioner has admittedly paid only an amount of ₹ 15,29,057/- to the Corporate Debtor, as is evident from books of account of the CD. This amount is duly supported by credible documentary evidence i.e., books of account and other accounting record of CD and verified by the RP. It is worthwhile to record that RP has to do the verification of claims strictly in accordance with accounting entries appearing in the CD s accounts. The payments claimed to have been made by petitioners in cash to the Mr. Rohit is not supported with any of the entries in the books account of the CD. The applicant himself admits in the application on hand that ex-directors are fraudulent - The independent legal remedies are available with the applicant to recover the amount, if any, from Mr.Rohit. But the CIR Process can t be used to perpetuate fraud. Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Application for issuance of Direction to the Resolution Professional to accept the claim in full. 2. Whether the Resolution Professional rightly revised the claim of the Applicant to the tune of ?15,75,279? Analysis: 1. The application was filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking direction for the Resolution Professional to accept the claim in full. The applicant invested in a project but was unable to get the unit. The Resolution Professional unilaterally revised the claim amount, reducing it significantly. The applicant argued that the RP's duty is to collate all claims submitted by creditors, not to verify or reject claims. Citing relevant judgments, the applicant contended that the RP exceeded its powers by rejecting the claim. 2. The Resolution Professional justified the revision of the claim, stating that the amount claimed was not reflected in the books of the Corporate Debtor. The RP's duty includes verifying claims, and the revision was made as per regulations. The RP argued that the alleged cash payment by the Applicant could not be verified from the CD's books of account. The RP maintained that the claim was not rejected but revised based on available data and regulations. 3. The adjudicating authority analyzed the duties of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and Resolution Professional (RP) under the Code and IBBI Regulations. The RP's duty includes preserving assets and maintaining an updated list of claims. The IRP/RP must verify claims supported by evidence and proper records in the CD's accounts. In this case, the RP admitted the claim after verifying the amount paid by the Applicant, supported by credible evidence from the CD's books of account. The RP's decision was deemed appropriate and not arbitrary. 4. The authority dismissed the application, stating that the RP's revision of the claim to ?15,75,279 was justified. The claim was admitted after proper verification and in accordance with accounting entries. The authority noted that the alleged cash payments were not supported by CD's records, and the applicant had legal remedies to recover from the concerned party. The RP's decision was upheld as reasonable and not warranting any intervention. In conclusion, the application seeking direction for full acceptance of the claim was dismissed by the adjudicating authority, upholding the Resolution Professional's decision to revise the claim amount to ?15,75,279 based on proper verification and adherence to regulations.
|
