9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1430 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking direction to the IRP to accept the claims submitted by the Applicant - Operational Creditor, inadvertently, in Form-C mis-typed as a Financial Creditor - time limitation on filing claims - Section 60(5) of IBC r/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the last date for submissions of claims was 04.12.2019, however, the Appellant has filed his claim on 12.12.2020 i.e delay of 374 days. The Appellant in any case cannot get the advantage of the Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2021 (5) TMI 564 - SC ORDER as prescribed period has already been expired on 04.12.2019 for submitting the claim. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that the CIRP is at the stage of about to end. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has also mentioned that if the Appellant s claims is directed to consider at belated stage it will not only be unfair to the other creditors who could not file their claim with the RP because of the delay but would also dilute the purpose of publication of Form-A. CIRP is a time bound process and if the Adjudicating Authority sets the clock back, it would certainly go against main objective of the Code. There are no ground to admit this Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal is dismissed summarily without notice to the other side.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for direction to accept claims submitted by the Appellant. 2. Dismissal of the Application on the ground of limitation. 3. Appeal against rejection of claim based on delay. 4. Consideration of delay in filing claim and impact on the CIRP process. Analysis: 1. The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed an Application under Section 60(5) of IBC seeking direction to accept claims submitted on 12.12.2020, mistakenly typed as a Financial Creditor instead of an Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application citing limitation issues. The Appellant argued that the Supreme Court had extended the limitation period due to the pandemic, referencing a previous case where rejection based on delay was deemed unsustainable. 2. The Appellant had paid a significant sum in the past, initiated insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, but was unaware of the CIRP commencement. Despite filing the claim late, the Appellant contended that the rejection was unfair, especially given the Supreme Court's ruling on limitation extensions. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the time-bound nature of CIRP and the potential unfairness to other creditors if the Appellant's claim was accepted belatedly. 3. The Adjudicating Authority determined that allowing the Appellant's claim at a late stage would disrupt the CIRP process and disadvantage other creditors. The dismissal of the Application was upheld, emphasizing the importance of adhering to timelines in insolvency proceedings to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the resolution process. 4. The Tribunal concurred with the dismissal of the Application, finding no grounds for admitting the Appeal. Consequently, the Appeal was summarily dismissed without further notice to the opposing party, highlighting the significance of procedural compliance and adherence to timelines in insolvency matters to uphold the objectives of the Code and ensure fairness among creditors.
|
