2022 (6) TMI 1304 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking condonation of delay in filing claim amount - seeking direction to Respondent to include the Applicant as stakeholder in the finalized list of creditors and pay off the claim amount - direction to Respondents for payment of costs - HELD THAT - It is observed that the Applicant was required to file the form as per Regulation 20 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 before the Liquidator in Form G but the Applicant chose to file its claim in Form F under Regulation 9A of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016). This form is required to be filed during CIRP. Further the Form was belatedly submitted before the Liquidator who in turn informed the Applicant of shortcomings. It can be seen from the proceedings of this Tribunal vide order dated 07.03.2022, wherein it was submitted by the Applicant/RPFC that they seek condonation of delay of 268 days in making claim to the liquidator. But when this Tribunal has calculated the delays from the liquidation commencement date and till the date of submission of impugned form before the Liquidator i.e. 06.07.2021, i.e. the delay comes to 672 days and not 268 days - Hence extraordinary delay of 672 days in submission of claim by applicant, is devoid of merits. Further in interest of Justice also we cannot condone the delay sought for. Further, if such extraordinary delay is condone, it shall defeat the very purpose of the IBC enactment, which is a time bound process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GAURAV HARGOVINDBHAI DAVE VERSUS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. 2019 (9) TMI 1019 - SUPREME COURT , in relation to the aspect of limitation has restated the well-established and well settled principle that there is no equity about limitation , this Application/Appeal need not be entertained. Since the application is incomplete, the claim form which has been filed by the applicant before the Liquidator is not in accordance with the form prescribed under IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, such claim is non-est - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing claim amount under IBC, inclusion of applicant as stakeholder in list of creditors, payment of claim amount on priority, payment of costs.

Condonation of Delay in Filing Claim:
The Application sought to condone a delay in filing a claim amount before the Respondent under Section 60(5)(b) & (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor was initiated, followed by liquidation. The Applicant submitted its claim belatedly, leading to a dispute regarding the delay and the proper form to be filed. The Applicant filed a Petition for condonation of delay, which was challenged due to the substantial delay of 672 days, far exceeding the initially claimed 268 days. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation periods in legal matters, ultimately dismissing the application due to the extraordinary delay, stating it would undermine the time-bound nature of the IBC process.

Inclusion of Applicant as Stakeholder and Payment of Claim:
The Applicant requested to be included as a stakeholder in the finalized list of creditors and to receive the claim amount on first priority from the liquidation assets/estate of the Respondent. However, the Tribunal found the claim form submitted by the Applicant to be incomplete and not in accordance with the prescribed form under the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. As a result, the Tribunal deemed the claim as non-est, leading to the dismissal of the application. The Tribunal highlighted that condoning such an extraordinary delay would defeat the purpose of the IBC enactment, which operates on strict timelines to ensure efficiency in the resolution process.

Payment of Costs:
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made by both parties, dismissed the IA(IBC)/748/CHE/2021 without imposing any costs. The decision was based on the incomplete nature of the application, the significant delay in filing the claim, and the non-compliance with the prescribed form requirements. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of the IBC process by adhering to the specified procedures and timelines, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the application seeking relief.