9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 715 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyOperational Creditor or Financial Creditor - Seeking to declare applicant/GNIDA as Operational Creditor in the 6th CoC - seeking for issue of necessary directions for upholding and continuing the already declared position/status of the applicant/GNIDA as 'Financial Creditor' as per the earlier decision taken in the 4th meeting of CoC on 21.10.2019 - HELD THAT - Similar issue decided in the case of VMS EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRIMOSE INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 2020 (10) TMI 385 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH where the applicant had challenged the decision taken by the CoC in its 6th meeting dated 17.12.2019, by which the applicant i.e. Greater Noida Authority was declared as an Operational Creditor instead of Financial Creditor - this Adjudicating Authority, after considering the submissions of the applicant as well as RP and the decisions referred by the parties, passed a detailed order and confirmed the decision of the RP, to treat the applicant as an Operational Creditor instead of Financial Creditor. Since the similar issue raised earlier by the applicant has already been decided by this Bench, hence, the present application is not maintainable - application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Application under section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 against the decision of the Resolution Professional. 2. Declaration of applicant as Operational Creditor instead of Financial Creditor. 3. Request for necessary directions and quashing of decisions taken in CoC meetings. 4. Replacement of the Resolution Professional and initiation of action against him. Analysis: 1. The applicant, a statutory Authority, filed an application under section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 challenging the decision of the Resolution Professional declaring them as an Operational Creditor in the 6th CoC meeting. The applicant sought to uphold their status as a Financial Creditor based on a previous decision in the 4th CoC meeting. They also requested the replacement of the current Resolution Professional and action against him for the alleged financial loss incurred due to the change in status. 2. The applicant, GNIDA, claimed to be the owner of the land and entered into agreements with a Consortium for development purposes. They argued that the transactions with the Corporate Debtor were financial in nature due to payments for land premium and lease rent, constituting a financial debt. The applicant contended that they were a Secured Creditor based on the lease agreement terms and the nature of the dues owed by the Corporate Debtor. 3. The applicant highlighted their submission of claims as a Financial Creditor in the 4th CoC meeting, where they were undisputedly accepted as such. They objected to being declared an Operational Creditor in the subsequent 6th CoC meeting, emphasizing that the change in status was unwarranted and should not have been reviewed or reversed. 4. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been raised and decided in a previous case (CA/1511/2019) involving the same parties and subject matter. The Tribunal referred to an order dated 28.02.2020, where the decision to treat the applicant as an Operational Creditor was confirmed. As a result, the Tribunal found the present application to be not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application as the issues raised had already been addressed and decided in a previous order, rendering the current application not maintainable. The applicant's arguments regarding their status as a Financial Creditor and the actions of the Resolution Professional were considered in light of previous decisions, leading to the dismissal of the present application.
|
