9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 823 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - There is no communication from the RP to the Applicant rejecting the claim. It is no defence to argue that the list of creditors was uploaded on the website of the corporate debtor, and therefore, there is constructive notice to the world at large. Be that as it may, as soon the Applicant came to know of it, he filed an application under section 60(5) of the Code on 03.02.2020, seeking judicial intervention in the matter. It cannot be the fault of the applicant that the application which was filed on 03.02.2020, could not come up for hearing before the application for approval of the Resolution Plan came up on 04.02.2020. It cannot now be contended that the Adjudicating Authority denuded of jurisdiction to deal with the present application only because the Resolution Plan has been approved - the answering Respondent's objections on the maintainability of the applications on the sole ground that such applications cannot survive after the Resolution Plan has been approved, is hereby overruled. The applications be listed for arguments on merits on 09.06.2021, since the Resolution Plan is currently being implemented and any delay will defeat the ends of justice.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of applications filed by Tantia-MPPL (WILO) JV and Krishna Hi-Tech Infrastructure Private Limited against the Resolution Professional (RP) of Tantia Constructions Limited after the approval of the Resolution Plan. Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Applications: The Tribunal considered two applications: IA No. 1840/KB/2019 by Tantia-MPPL (WILO) JV and IA No. 497/KB/2020 by Krishna Hi-Tech Infrastructure Private Limited against the RP of Tantia Constructions Limited. The Tribunal deliberated on the maintainability of these applications post the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The applications sought directions related to claims against the corporate debtor and reconsideration of submitted claims before the approval of the Resolution Plan. 2. Applicant's Case in IA No. 1840/KB/2019: In IA No. 1840/KB/2019, Tantia-MPPL (WILO) JV detailed its joint venture agreement with the corporate debtor, claiming an amount of &8377; 9.02 crore. The applicant filed proof of claim with the RP, which was rejected, leading to the application seeking inclusion of the claim. The Tribunal noted the timely filing of the application post-rejection and the need for judicial intervention to address the matter. 3. Applicant's Case in IA No. 497/KB/2020: Krishna Hi-Tech Infrastructure Private Limited, in IA No. 497/KB/2020, submitted a claim of &8377; 1,81,00,496 with supporting documentation. Despite providing requested clarifications, the RP did not communicate the acceptance or rejection of the claim. The applicant, upon discovering the claim was "pending for information," requested the RP to reverify the claim, leading to the application for direction to consider the claim. 4. Respondent's Replies: The responding respondent in IA No. 1840/KB/2019 emphasized the approved Resolution Plan's impact on the application's maintainability, citing potential prejudice to stakeholders. In IA No. 497/KB/2020, the respondent, acting as Chairman of the Monitoring Committee, acknowledged partial acceptance of the claim but argued for the application's rejection due to the approved Resolution Plan. 5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal, citing legal precedents, overruled the respondent's objections on maintainability, emphasizing the need to address potential injustice and ensure fairness. It held that the applications were maintainable post-Resolution Plan approval and required merit-based consideration. The Tribunal directed both applications to be listed for arguments on merits to prevent delays that could impede justice. 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal's detailed analysis highlighted the importance of addressing claims post-Resolution Plan approval to prevent injustice and uphold fairness. By ruling in favor of the applications' maintainability, the Tribunal ensured a thorough examination of the claims' merits, emphasizing the need for timely judicial intervention to rectify any potential discrepancies.
|
