2020 (10) TMI 223 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of claim of applicant filed against Corporate Debtor -enlisting the Applicant in the list of Operational Creditor or Corporate Debtor - claim was made after CIRP period of 270 days got over - HELD THAT - We are unable to accept the contentions of the Counsel for the Applicant that Resolution Professional is bound to send notice to the Creditors requiring them to file their claim. In fact, it is the responsibility of the creditor concerned to file claim within the time after the issue of public notice inviting claims by the Resolution Professional. In this regard, Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Regulation Process for Corporate Person) Regulation, 2016 provides that the Insolvency Professional shall make public announcement in Form-A within 3 days from date of his appointment as IRP, inviting claims from the public and the claimant should file claim within the stipulated time. Admittedly, in this case the Applicant has filed claim after the completion of CIRP period of 270 days and also the after the approval of the Resolution Plan by this Tribunal. The Counsel for the RP submits that the Applicant has filed the claim after a long delay that too after the approval of the Resolution Plan and in these circumstances the Application cannot be entertained by this Tribunal. Application not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in submitting proof of claim, acceptance of claim against Corporate Debtor, recall of order, unauthorized clauses in Resolution Plan.

Analysis:
1. The Applicant filed an Application seeking relief for condoning a delay of 1111 days in submitting proof of claim against the Corporate Debtor, enlistment as an Operational Creditor, and recalling an order. The Applicant claimed that the Resolution Professional failed to disclose information, resulting in the delay.

2. The Applicant highlighted that Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificates were issued to the Corporate Debtor, obligating them to inform and provide documents to the Applicant regarding export obligations. Failure to comply led to a demand for customs duty, supported by notices and an Order-in-Original.

3. The Applicant faced resistance from the Resolution Professional regarding claim acceptance due to the timing of filing post Resolution Plan approval. The claim amount totaled ?124,17,32,525, filed after the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period.

4. The Tribunal examined the duties of the Resolution Professional under Section 18 of the Code, emphasizing that creditors are responsible for filing claims within the stipulated period after public announcement. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant filed the claim post-Resolution Plan approval.

5. The Applicant sought to invoke inherent powers of the Tribunal under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. However, the Respondent argued that inherent powers cannot override express provisions of the law, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

6. Rulings from NCLT and NCLAT were referenced by both parties to support their arguments regarding the acceptance of claims post-Resolution Plan approval. The Respondent contended that such admissions are impermissible and illegal.

7. After considering all arguments and legal provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Application was not maintainable and rejected it, emphasizing that the claim was filed after a significant delay and post-Resolution Plan approval. No costs were awarded in the judgment.