9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 715 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyDirection upon the Resolution Professional to accept the claim of the applicant in full by condoning delay in filing the claim before the Resolution Professional - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the applicant has filed its claim beyond the stipulated time i.e. near about after 8 months when the liquidator has filed its final list of stakeholder before the Adjudicating Authority on 13.05.2019 as per regulation 31(2) of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016. Moreover, the claim has originated on 30.11.2019, these were not in existence as on the liquidation commencement date. The said fact has already been informed to the applicant and acceptance, if any, shall be against the Rule 16 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. However, on perusal of the record it is found that liquidator has already accepted the original claim for ₹ 97,95,135/- lodged by the applicant and the same is duly accepted and admitted. Under such circumstances, if any claim is accepted, in that event, the liquidator has to revise their stakeholders list but in contravention of Regulation which may further delay the process of liquidation and very objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will be frustrated. Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing claim before the Resolution Professional under Section 60(5) of the IB Code, 2016. Analysis: The applicant sought direction under Section 60(5) of the IB Code, 2016 to compel the Resolution Professional to accept their claim in full despite a delay in filing. The applicant alleged that the Corporate Debtor owed dues to the Gujarat State Tax Department for VAT and CST, which were brought to the Debtor's notice through assessment orders and demand notices. The applicant argued that the Resolution Professional failed to consider their dues while preparing the list of creditors, despite the Debtor's knowledge of the outstanding amounts. The Resolution Professional rejected the applicant's claim, citing late submission after the deadline for the Resolution Plan. The applicant contended that the taxes owed were indirect, collected by the Debtor from clients for remittance to the State Tax Department, and should not be denied. The liquidator, however, opposed the claim, stating that the additional demand arose after the liquidation commencement date and was lodged beyond the claim submission deadline. The liquidator highlighted that the final stakeholder list had already been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority before the applicant's late claim. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized that the applicant's claim was beyond the stipulated time, originating after the liquidation commencement date and thus not payable as per regulations. While the original claim was accepted by the liquidator, subsequent demands were rejected due to their post-liquidation date origin. Allowing such late claims would disrupt the liquidation process, necessitating revisions to stakeholder lists and potentially inviting numerous similar claims, undermining the Code's objectives. Consequently, the application was dismissed to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the insolvency proceedings.
|
