2019 (6) TMI 1652 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Collation of claims - applicability of limitation period of three years - Article 137 of the schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 - HELD THAT - IRP is directed to examine the claim of the applicant- NOIDA and shall not reject it on the ground that it is time barred or that it is a claim by an entity other than the Financial Creditor. List for further consideration on 01.07.2019.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of claim by Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).
2. Applicability of limitation period in the case.
3. Determination of NOIDA as a 'Financial Creditor' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal addressed the issue of the IRP's refusal to consider the claim of NOIDA in an adversarial manner. It was emphasized that the IRP should not adopt an adversarial litigant attitude and must examine the claim without bias. The Tribunal ruled that the piece of land allotted by NOIDA is under the first charge, making the provisions of Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable, providing for a 12-year limitation period. The Tribunal directed the IRP to examine NOIDA's claim without rejecting it on the grounds of being time-barred or not being a 'Financial Creditor'.

2. Regarding the applicability of the limitation period, the Tribunal clarified that the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in this case due to the first charge on the land allotted by NOIDA. Instead, the 12-year limitation period under Article 62 of the Limitation Act was deemed applicable. This determination was crucial in ensuring that NOIDA's claim was not unjustly dismissed based on a misapplication of the limitation provisions.

3. The Tribunal delved into the classification of NOIDA as a 'Financial Creditor' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. NOIDA contended that its liability in respect of the lease/hire purchase agreement should qualify it as a 'Financial Creditor' under Section 5(8)(d) of the Code. NOIDA argued that the lease agreement fell under the definition of a finance or capital lease as per Indian Accounting Standards. The Tribunal considered NOIDA's arguments and directed the IRP to evaluate NOIDA's claim without rejecting it on the grounds of not being a 'Financial Creditor'. This analysis was crucial in ensuring that NOIDA's claim was evaluated fairly and in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.

This detailed analysis of the Tribunal's judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues addressed and the legal reasoning applied in the case involving NOIDA, the IRP, and the classification of NOIDA as a 'Financial Creditor'.