2023 (9) TMI 1463 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Request made by the Appellant for submission of claim - request rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground of delay - HELD THAT - Once the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd 2023 (9) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT has held that even in a case where the Adjudicating Authority has not approved the plan would not imply that the plan can go back and forth making the CIRP an endless process because in that matter it would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. There are no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against the order dismissing the application for setting aside the email/order of the Resolution Professional under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for allowing the submission of a claim after a delay.

Summary:
1. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor, and the Appellant, IDBI Bank Ltd., failed to submit their claim within the prescribed time. Despite a delay of 502 days, the Appellant submitted the claim, which was rejected by the Resolution Professional (RP). The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Appellant's application to set aside the rejection on the grounds of delay.

2. The order dismissing the initial application was not challenged further. Following a Supreme Court decision allowing the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to proceed based on fresh Expressions of Interest (EoIs), the Appellant sent an email to the RP requesting the admission of its claim, citing the Supreme Court's decision as a basis for the late submission.

3. The Appellant's counsel argued that the fresh claim was made due to the Supreme Court's decision, while the Respondent's counsel contended that the Appellant cannot pursue the same claim again after it was rejected for delay by the Adjudicating Authority and cited a relevant Supreme Court case.

4. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a similar case. The Tribunal noted that the delay in the Appellant's claim submission was substantial and that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a time-bound process. Referring to the Supreme Court's findings, the Tribunal concluded that reopening the issue would lead to an endless process and dismissed the appeal.

5. No other significant points were raised by the parties, and the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, ultimately dismissing it without any order as to costs.