2021 (3) TMI 296 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Rejection of fresh claim after the approval of Resolution Plan - Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the RP has not been fair in communication as the RP did not inform that the resolution plan was already approved. - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the resolution plan was already approved on March 19, 2020 and the appellant filed claim on June 15, 2020 keeping in view provisions of the IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016), we do not think that it is a matter where things can be undone. The proceedings for CIRP are proceedings which are initiated with public notice and resolution plan takes its own time to get passed. The claims are to be filed in response to public notice which RP/IRP issued. In such contingency, after the resolution plan has already been approved in March, 2020, fresh claim cannot be entertained in June, 2020. The party aggrieved is required to follow the procedure under the provisions of the IBC. The appellant appears to have filed claim after much delay and the appellant cannot be granted the relief as is being sought - appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Claim of secured creditor/financial creditor against corporate debtor.
2. Communication and information exchange between appellant and resolution professional.
3. Approval of resolution plan and subsequent claim filing by appellant.
4. Allegations of unfair communication by resolution professional.
5. Review of the order approving resolution plan.
6. Entering into settlement agreement by resolution professional during pending resolution plan.
7. Entertaining fresh claim post approval of resolution plan.
8. Invocation of moratorium under section 14 of IBC and delay in filing claim.

Analysis:

1. The appellant claimed to be a secured creditor/financial creditor of L&T Finance with dues to recover from the corporate debtor, Jai Hind Projects Ltd. The appellant communicated with the interim resolution professional (IRP) regarding the assignment of the loan and requested details of any claim filed by L&T Finance against the corporate debtor.

2. The IRP informed the appellant that L&T Finance was not part of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the corporate debtor under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The RP mentioned that the resolution plan had been orally approved but awaited written orders due to lockdown restrictions affecting access to complete records.

3. The appellant filed a claim before the RP after the approval of the resolution plan, leading to a rejection by the Adjudicating Authority. The conduct of the RP was questioned based on the approval date of the resolution plan and an order passed by the High Court against the corporate debtor.

4. The appellant's claim filing and subsequent review application were part of the legal proceedings, highlighting delays and procedural issues in communication and information sharing between the parties involved.

5. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's application for a review of the resolution plan approval, citing the timing of the claim filing post-approval and the public notice requirements under the IBC.

6. Allegations of unfair communication by the RP surfaced, pointing to a previous incident of entering into a settlement agreement during a pending resolution plan, which was criticized in another order. The ongoing legal disputes and delays raised concerns about the resolution process.

7. The Tribunal concluded that fresh claims post approval of the resolution plan could not be entertained, emphasizing the importance of timely claim filings and adherence to the IBC provisions.

8. The invocation of moratorium under section 14 of the IBC and the delay in filing the claim were crucial factors in the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal without admission, highlighting the need for compliance with legal procedures and timelines in insolvency proceedings.

← Previous Next →