9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 371 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking directions against the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) - It is submitted by the respondent that the only documents annexed with Form C of the applicant are balance sheets of the company for the financial years beginning from 2008-09 till 2014-15 and the calculation of interest which has been assumed @12% p.a. is based on the prime lending rate of SBI as benchmark - HELD THAT - The Respondent has neither denied nor rejected the claim of the applicant rather has only advised to file the claim under Form F which is for other creditors as no relevant documents have been brought forth by the applicant to support his claim of being a Financial Creditor. The Respondent/RP has not rejected the claim of the Applicant. It has only sought clarificatory documents and in the absence of such documents advised the applicant to files his claim in Form-F. The HBN Dairies and Allied Ltd. cannot be admitted to be a Financial Creditor in absence of appropriate supporting documents to prove its claim as Financial Creditor. As per the Code for a claimant to be categorized as Financial Creditor there has to be a financial debt as per Section 5(8) of the Code which is a debt disbursed against the consideration for time value of money. The amount of 61, 31, 09, 115/- outstanding payable to HBN Dairies and Allied Ltd. does not have the essential ingredients of financial debt and does not fall under Section 5(8) of the Code unless proven otherwise by necessary documents - the present application fails and is rejected.
Issues:
1. Admission of claim by the Interim Resolution Professional 2. Classification of the claim as Financial Creditor 3. Submission of necessary supporting documents 4. Dispute over interest on unsecured loan 5. Involvement of SEBI and SAT orders 6. Request for inclusion in the Committee of Creditors 7. Rejection of claim as Financial Creditor 8. Application for non-cooperation by suspended promoters Analysis: 1. The Resolution Professional of the parent company filed an application seeking directions against the Interim Resolution Professional of the subsidiary company to admit the claim, include it in the Committee of Creditors, and provide voting shares. The claim amount included an unsecured loan with interest, supported by financial documents. 2. The Respondent raised concerns over the classification of the claim as a Financial Creditor due to lack of supporting documents proving it to be a financial debt disbursed against the time value of money. The Respondent advised filing the claim under a different category, Form-F, for 'other creditors.' 3. Disputes arose regarding the interest on the unsecured loan, with the Applicant justifying the interest rate based on the prime lending rate of SBI. The Respondent requested further documents and clarifications, emphasizing the need for proof of financial debt. 4. The involvement of SEBI and SAT orders regarding illegal fund mobilization by the company's promoters added complexity to the case. The Tribunal had previously directed SEBI to de-attach properties for the CIRP process, which faced challenges and appeals. 5. The Applicant sought inclusion in the Committee of Creditors, highlighting the shared promoters of both companies and the need to realize the loan asset for the benefit of creditors. The Respondent, however, emphasized the lack of interest provision in financial statements. 6. The Respondent's emails indicated the need for additional documents to verify the claim, leading to a suggestion to file under Form-F. The Respondent neither denied nor rejected the claim but advised on proper classification based on supporting documents. 7. The Tribunal rejected the application, citing the absence of necessary documents to prove the claim as a Financial Creditor. The loan between related companies lacked essential elements of financial debt as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 8. The dispute highlighted the challenges faced due to non-cooperation by suspended promoters, leading to delays in obtaining required financial documents. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with appropriate supporting evidence for proper classification and admission.
|
