9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 798 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyEntertainment of claim by RP which is time barred - seeking direction upon the RP to look into the issue - HELD THAT - On perusal of the record, it is found that the Application is filed by the erstwhile Director of the Corporate Debtor i.e. Neesa Leisure Limited. RP is an appointee of the Court and he has to collate all the information and submit the same before the COC. The COC based on its commercial wisdom is to decide the matter - there is no merit in the instant application and hence, dismissed.
Issues:
- Locus standi of Suspended Management to file application under Section 60(2) & 60(5) of IBC, 2016 and Rule 11 of NCLT rules. Analysis: The Tribunal addressed the issue of locus standi of the Suspended Management to file an application under Section 60(2) & 60(5) of IBC, 2016 and Rule 11 of NCLT rules. The RP argued that the claim entertained by the RP was time-barred, and the Suspended Management had no standing to file the application. The Tribunal noted that the application was filed by the erstwhile Director of the Corporate Debtor, Neesa Leisure Limited. It was highlighted that the RP, appointed by the Court, was tasked with collating information for submission to the COC, which would then make decisions based on commercial wisdom. The Tribunal cited a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a related matter, emphasizing that the commercial wisdom of the COC should not be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority, thereby indicating that the Suspended Management had no role in such decisions. The Tribunal further elaborated on the RP's role as a Court appointee responsible for presenting information to the COC for decision-making. Referring to a specific judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the COC should not be meddled with by any other party, including the Suspended Management. In light of these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the Suspended Management lacked the standing to file the application. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the Suspended Management. The decision was based on the RP's role, the authority of the COC, and the legal precedent regarding the interference with the commercial decisions of the COC by external parties. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the locus standi of the Suspended Management to file an application under the relevant provisions of the IBC and NCLT rules. The decision highlighted the limited role of the Suspended Management in such matters, emphasizing the authority of the RP and the COC in decision-making processes. By citing legal precedents and relevant provisions, the Tribunal underscored the importance of upholding the commercial wisdom of the COC without external interference, leading to the dismissal of the application filed by the Suspended Management.
|
