9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1346 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - Section 31 of the IBC - HELD THAT - It is a matter of record that the main petition i.e. CP (IB) No. 122/Chd/HP/2019 was admitted on 23.12.2019 and IRP was appointed, who invited claims by making public announcement in Form A and the last date for submissions of claims were mentioned as 05.01.2020. However, the applicant has submitted its claim on 18.11.2020 in accordance with Regulation 7(1), much beyond the stipulated time. It is matter of record that RP has already issued IM to resolution applicant on 17.10.2020. The claim made after the resolution plan has already been received by the Resolution Professional. At that belated stage, if such type of applications are allowed, the resolution plans already received by the COC from the prospective resolution applicants, may get failed, as those are filed on the basis of Information Memorandum (IM). The Prospective Resolution Applicants submitted their resolution plan on the basis of their financial capacity and availability of funds - If such claim is accepted, then the Resolution Applicants have to make corrections in their plans, that apart, RP has to make corrections in the IM and its report, correction in the stakeholder list, etc., for which RP has to take permission from this Adjudicating Authority, which may further delay the CIRP. Moreover, CIRP cannot be allowed/extended beyond upper limit of 330 days, in that event the corporate debtor would be compelled to go for liquidation. There is every likelihood that the Resolution Applicants may withdraw their plan, as it will be a burden with other huge claims of the creditors, which they might have not planned earlier, while working out the resolution plan based on the Information Memorandum. Thus, under such situation, the corporate debtor may be pushed for liquidation - Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Request for a copy of the Resolution Plan. 2. Admission of the applicant's entire claim. 3. Rejection of the existing Resolution Plan and consideration of a revised plan. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Request for a Copy of the Resolution Plan: The applicant, M/s Concept Infracon Private Limited, sought a direction to the Resolution Professional (RP) to provide a copy of the Resolution Plan. The applicant argued that, under Section 24(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Operational Creditors have the right to participate in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) meetings and receive a copy of the Resolution Plan. The applicant cited the Supreme Court's decision in 'Vijay Kumar Jain versus Standard Chartered Bank and Others' to support this claim. 2. Admission of the Applicant's Entire Claim: The applicant sought the admission of their entire claim amounting to ?1,19,33,688/-. The applicant contended that the corporate debtor had defaulted on payments despite the applicant providing services satisfactorily. The applicant submitted proof of claim on March 20, 2020, and sent multiple reminders, but the RP did not respond until November 13, 2020. The applicant argued that the RP breached Regulation 13 and Regulation 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and the duties under the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016. 3. Rejection of the Existing Resolution Plan and Consideration of a Revised Plan: The applicant requested the rejection of the existing Resolution Plan filed under Section 31 of the IBC and sought a direction for the RP to put a revised plan before the CoC after incorporating the applicant's claim. The applicant relied on the NCLAT judgment in 'Mr. Navneet Kumar Gupta, Resolution Professional of Monnet Power Company Limited versus Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,' which stated that the RP cannot reject or accept claims but must verify them. Tribunal's Findings: 1. Timeliness and Procedural Compliance: The Tribunal noted that the main petition was admitted on December 23, 2019, and the RP invited claims with a submission deadline of January 5, 2020. The applicant submitted the claim on November 18, 2020, well beyond the stipulated time. The Tribunal emphasized that the RP had already issued the Information Memorandum (IM) on October 17, 2020, and the Resolution Plan was submitted on November 17, 2020. 2. Impact on CIRP Timeline: The Tribunal highlighted that accepting claims at such a belated stage would disrupt the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) timeline, potentially leading to the failure of the Resolution Plan and pushing the corporate debtor towards liquidation. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.' which mandates strict adherence to the CIRP timeline. 3. Objective of IBC: The Tribunal underscored the objective of the IBC, which is to ensure a timely resolution process to maximize the value of the corporate debtor. Allowing delayed claims would defeat this purpose and burden the Resolution Applicants with unforeseen claims, potentially leading to the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the claim was submitted beyond the stipulated time and accepting it would disrupt the CIRP. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the CIRP timeline to achieve the objectives of the IBC.
|
