2021 (3) TMI 1382 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Acceptance of proof of claim submitted by the Applicant - treating Applicant as a secured financial creditor entitled to all rights and privileges of a secured financial creditor - seeking reconstitution of Committee of Creditors within 7 (Seven) days from the date of disposal of this Application - seeking utilization of refund amount, first to pay the outstanding dues / loan amounts as set out under the proof of claim submitted by the Applicant - HELD THAT - Once a Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC, no claim can be accepted and the same shall amount to hydra head popping , which would throw into uncertainty the amounts payable by the prospective Resolution Applicant who successfully takes over the business of the Corporate Debtor. The ratio of Essar Steel judgment and JSW Steel was followed by the Hon ble NCLAT in the case titled followed by the Hon ble NCLAT in SANTOSH WASANTRAO WALOKAR, DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED, M/S SNEHA TRADERS, M/S SHAMRAO BALIRAM, MR. NITIN MURLIDHAR SUGANCHAND AGRAWAL, MR. LALCHAND MALOO, MS. PRAKRITI NIGAM VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR V. IYER, DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED, M/S. MURALI INDUSTRIES LIMITED 2020 (4) TMI 385 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI , wherein it was held that the Resolution Applicant cannot be suddenly faced with undecided claims after the Plan submitted by him has been accepted. There are force in the contention of the Respondent that the resolution professional has sought for the clarifications/ documents with regard to the claim. The Applicant sat on their unsubstantiated claim for various months, without furnishing the proof substantiating her claim, owing to which their claim could not be verified. In the absence of documents supporting the claim of the Applicant, the RP cannot process and accept the claim of the Applicant - If the claim of said home buyers who had taken loans from applicant is already admitted then same amount of claim cannot be again admitted by RP which will amount to duplication. The present application fails and is rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of proof of claim by the Resolution Professional.
2. Treatment of the Applicant as a secured financial creditor.
3. Reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors.
4. Utilization of refunded amounts to home buyers.
5. Submission and acknowledgment of claim documents.
6. Jurisdiction and timing of the application post-approval of the Resolution Plan.
7. Duplication of claims and recovery certificates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acceptance of Proof of Claim by the Resolution Professional:
The Applicant, Axis Bank Limited, filed an application seeking directions against the Resolution Professional (RP) of M/s Subhkamana Buildtech Private Limited to accept its proof of claim and treat it as a secured financial creditor. The Applicant submitted its claim on December 31, 2018, well before the deadline of January 12, 2019. Despite multiple reminders, the IRP and subsequently the RP did not acknowledge the claim, citing the non-receipt of supporting documents.

2. Treatment of the Applicant as a Secured Financial Creditor:
The Applicant argued that it should be treated as a secured financial creditor due to the tripartite agreements with the home buyers and the Corporate Debtor, which included indemnification, lien, and subrogation clauses. The RP, however, maintained that the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to substantiate its claim, and therefore, it could not be admitted.

3. Reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors:
The Applicant requested the Tribunal to direct the RP to reconstitute the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to include the Applicant as a secured financial creditor. The RP countered that the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the CoC on October 17, 2019, and the application was moved post-approval, making it without jurisdiction.

4. Utilization of Refunded Amounts to Home Buyers:
The Applicant sought a directive that any refunded amounts to home buyers should first be used to pay the outstanding dues to the Applicant. The RP argued that the claims of the home buyers had already been admitted and included in the Resolution Plan, and any additional claim by the Applicant would result in duplication.

5. Submission and Acknowledgment of Claim Documents:
The Applicant submitted its claim electronically, as required by the public announcements. However, the RP requested hard copies, which the Applicant attempted to submit but were refused by the IRP. The RP later stated that the claim was never received, and the Applicant did not act upon its rights under the tripartite agreements.

6. Jurisdiction and Timing of the Application Post-Approval of the Resolution Plan:
The RP cited the Supreme Court's decision in "Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta," which held that no undecided claims could be entertained after the approval of a Resolution Plan. This principle was reiterated in subsequent judgments, emphasizing that a successful resolution applicant should not face undecided claims post-approval.

7. Duplication of Claims and Recovery Certificates:
The Applicant had obtained recovery certificates from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against the Corporate Debtor and respective home buyers. The RP argued that admitting the Applicant's claim would result in duplication, as the home buyers' claims had already been included in the Resolution Plan.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found merit in the RP's arguments, noting that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support its claim. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Applicant had alternative recourse through the DRT recovery certificates. Consequently, the application was rejected, and the order was communicated to the Applicant, Respondent, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).

← Previous Next →