2023 (2) TMI 1180 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Belated filing of claim - claim - Seeking direction the liquidator to admit the claim of the applicant - claims were submitted 85 days after the last date that was on 05.12.2021 - HELD THAT - It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor, Respondent herein has entered into the Supply Agreement dated 24.08.2018 with the Appellant. Further, the Agreement was between the Appellant and Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd. a Partnership firm and the Respondent being Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd., has nothing to do with the Supply Agreement dated 24.08.2018 and further the claim was filed with a delay of 85 days despite the notice of liquidation being published on the website of the IBBI and sufficient time being granted to all the creditors to file their claim. In view of the fact, the Adjudication Authority has rightly been passed the impugned order - there are no merit in the instant Appeal. Therefore, the instant Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order passed by NCLT Kolkata Bench under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Consideration of claim filed 85 days after the last date.
3. Interpretation of Section 36(3)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
4. Dispute regarding Supply Agreement and delay in filing the claim.
5. Adjudication of the appeal and decision on setting aside the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant was aggrieved by the rejection of IA (IBC)/461/(KB)2022 seeking direction for the liquidator to admit the claim filed 85 days after the last date. The Adjudicating Authority held that it was not feasible to consider the claim at that stage.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was legally flawed. Reference was made to Section 36(3)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, emphasizing that all proceeds of liquidation are to be kept in the liquidation estate and distributed in order. The Appellant sought to set aside the impugned order and requested the appeal to be allowed based on these submissions.

3. On the other hand, the Respondent's Counsel highlighted the delay of 85 days in filing the claim and disputed the relevance of the Supply Agreement dated 24.08.2018. It was pointed out that the claim was submitted despite sufficient time being granted to creditors after the notice of liquidation was published. The Respondent argued that the Adjudicating Authority rightly passed the impugned order based on these grounds.

4. After considering the arguments from both parties and reviewing the pleadings, the Appellate Tribunal found no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of substance in the appeal and the arguments presented by both the Appellant and the Respondent during the proceedings.