2021 (10) TMI 1346 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking impleadment of applicant as respondents - verification of claims of creditors - it is submitted that although the applicants are not added as a party in those applications, but during the course of hearing, several misleading statements were made by the Ld. Counsels for the ACRE and ITSL about the applicants - HELD THAT - The conjoint reading of Section 18 25 of IBC shows that the duty of the IRP is to receive and collate all the claims submitted by creditors to him, pursuant to the public announcement made under sections 13 and 15 of IBC, 2016. Whereas the duty of the RP is to maintain an updated list of claims, which means, if the IRP has received and collated all the claims submitted by the creditors to him those claims can be updated by the RP as the duty cast upon the RP under Section 25(2)(e) of IBC, 2016, is to maintain an updated list of claims - When the different classes of creditors have submitted their claims as well as the proof of claims as referred to in Regulation 12 of IBBI Regulations, then the IRP or the RP is authorized under the law to verify the every claim within seven days from the last date of receipt of the claim, and thereupon maintain a list of creditors containing names of creditors along with the amount claimed by them and the amount of their claims admitted. It is further seen that as per Regulation 13 (2) of the IBBI Regulations, the IRP or the RP shall make a list of creditors available for inspection by the persons, who have submitted proofs of claim or by the members, partners, directors and guarantors of the corporate debtor - Since, the authorized representative is appointed under Section 21(6A) of the IBC, 2016 and his rights and duties are defined under Section 25A of IBC, 2016 referred, it is observed that under Section 21(6A)(b), the authorized representative is appointed, if the class of creditors exceeds the number specified under the law. Thus, the authorized representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class, he represents. If the authorized representative shall have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class, he represents, then the association or the allottees who come under the class of creditors, shall also have no role in receipts or verification of claims of creditors rather it is the IRP or the RP, who is to decide the claims submitted by the creditors. The ACRE and ITSL have filed the applications against the rejection of their claims by the IRP - the applicants in both the IAs under consideration are not a necessary party to the respective proceedings. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Impleadment of applicants as respondents in IA No. 2286/2021 and IA No. 2275/2021.
2. Status and claims of financial creditors and composition of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
3. Verification and admission of claims by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
4. Role of the authorized representative in the receipt and verification of claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Impleadment of Applicants as Respondents:
The applicants sought to be impleaded as respondents in IA No. 2286/2021 and IA No. 2275/2021, arguing that they would be directly and substantially affected by the outcomes of these applications. The Tribunal noted that the applicants in both applications were the same individuals and that their arguments were identical. The Tribunal decided to dispose of both applications together.

2. Status and Claims of Financial Creditors and Composition of CoC:
The applicants, being members of the CoC, argued that their status as financial creditors and the composition of the CoC would be affected by the outcome of IA No. 2275/2021 and IA No. 2286/2021. They contended that misleading statements were made by the counsels for ACRE and ITSL about the applicants during the hearings, making them necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. The Tribunal observed that ACRE and ITSL had filed applications against the rejection of their claims by the IRP, which would determine the status of financial creditors and the composition of the CoC.

3. Verification and Admission of Claims by the IRP:
The Tribunal referred to the relevant provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, particularly Regulations 8, 8A, 12, 13, and 14, which deal with the submission, verification, and admission of claims by the IRP. The Tribunal emphasized that it is the duty of the IRP to receive and collate all claims submitted by creditors and to verify these claims within seven days from the last date of receipt. The IRP is also authorized to determine or revise the amount of claims based on additional information.

4. Role of the Authorized Representative in Receipt and Verification of Claims:
The Tribunal highlighted that under Regulation 16A(5) of the IBBI Regulations, the authorized representative has no role in the receipt or verification of claims of creditors of the class he represents. The Tribunal also referred to Sections 18, 25, and 25A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, which outline the duties of the IRP and the rights and duties of the authorized representative. The Tribunal concluded that since the authorized representative has no role in the receipt or verification of claims, the association or allottees, who come under the class of creditors, also have no role in these processes.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the applicants in both IA No. 2365/2021 and IA No. 2366/2021 were not necessary parties to the respective proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the prayers to implead the applicants as respondents in IA No. 2286/2021 and IA No. 2275/2021. Both applications, IA No. 2365/2021 and IA No. 2366/2021, were dismissed.