9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 212 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyIA No. 249/2020 Seeking a direction to admit its claim (by operational creditor) - rejection of claim on the ground that it is outstanding for more than three years and is a time barred debt, barred by limitation - period of 27.05.2015 to 11.06.2015 - HELD THAT - Since the claim form submitted by the applicant clearly mentioned about the said judgment in favour of the applicant and since the time for execution of the said decree and judgment had not yet expired, rejecting the claim of the applicant on the ground that the same was time barred is untenable and unsustainable - It is also to be seen that even as per the respondent even in the event of allowing the IA directing admission of the claim of the applicant, the resolution plan is in no way to be affected, since the resolution plan which was already approved by the Committee of Creditors (COC) of the corporate debtor, provided a lump-sum of ₹ 50 lakhs for all the operational creditors - Application allowed. IA No. 659/2020 Seeking a direction to the RP to admit claim of Operational Creditor with regard to interest amount also - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the provisions of the MSME Act clearly shows that in the event of any dispute, the same requires to be referred to the MSME Facilitation Council and the lis is to be decided by the said Council. Therefore, unless the applicant obtains an appropriate order from the MSME Facilitation Council for payment of any amount towards interest the same cannot be admissible by the RP - Application dismissed. IA No. 667/2020 Seeking a direction to the RP to admit claim of Operational Creditor - HELD THAT - In so far as the stand taken by the RP with regard to the submission of the claim belatedly i.e. submission of the claim after 90 days of CIRP, the same is unsustainable. In view of the settled principles of law, fixation of time limit for submission of claims is not mandatory and it is only directory, the RP cannot reject the claim of the applicant, unless the same is abnormally delayed and made after the approval of the resolution plan. But in the instant case the submission of claim was prior to the approval of the plan by the COC and hence, the action of the RP in rejecting the claim on the ground of belated submission i.e. beyond 90 days of the initiation of CIRP is unsustainable. In so far as the other reason given by the RP for rejection of the claim of the applicant i.e. the claim was outstanding for more than three years and is a time barred debt and barred by limitation, the applicant failed to state how his claim is still enforceable against the corporate debtor as on the date of initiation of the CIRP. Once the claim, prima facie, cannot be treated as an enforceable debt, it is not admissible. Hence, in this regard, the action of the RP cannot be found fault with. IA No. 707/2020 Appointment of RP - it is the case of the applicant that the respondent-Shri Nipan Bansal is ineligible to be appointed as the RP of the corporate debtor - HELD THAT - It is to be seen that now the process of CIRP against the corporate debtor has reached its finality since a resolution plan was already approved by the COC and that an application under Section 30(6) read with Section 31 of IBC 2016 had already been filed and is pending before this Adjudicating Authority. The role of the RP, almost came to an end and that no further action is required to be taken by the RP, unless in the event of rejection of the resolution plan by this Adjudicating Authority - Since, admittedly the applicant made complaint against the respondent-RP to the IBBI, at this stage, we are not inclined to adjudicate and give any finding on these IAs. IA No. 817/2020 Seeking ad-interim, direction or injunction/relief restraining the Respondents, agents or representatives from approving the Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - The instant IA is not maintainable before this Adjudicating Authority, as no provision under the IBC 2016 was shown to us which dealt with the One Time Settlement proposals of any corporate debtor with its lenders. Further, it is for the lenders of any corporate debtor to consider or not to consider an One Time Settlement proposal of any borrower/corporate debtor. The merits or demerits of an One Time Settlement proposal vis-a-vis. the merits and demerits of a resolution plan approved by the COC cannot be compared, as the scope and ambit of the both are different and distinct. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Admission of claims by operational creditors. 2. Entitlement of interest on delayed payments under MSME Act. 3. Validity of rejection of claims based on time-barred debts. 4. Removal and eligibility of the Resolution Professional (RP). 5. Consideration of One Time Settlement (OTS) proposals by the Committee of Creditors (COC). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admission of Claims by Operational Creditors: - IA No. 249/2020: The applicant, an operational creditor, filed a claim which was initially rejected by the RP on grounds of being time-barred. The Tribunal found that the applicant had obtained a decree and judgment against the corporate debtor, which was still enforceable. The rejection of the claim based on it being time-barred was deemed untenable. The Tribunal directed the RP to admit the claim. - IA No. 667/2020: The applicant's claim was rejected on the grounds of being time-barred and submitted after the stipulated 90 days. The Tribunal held that the 90-day limit for submission of claims is directory, not mandatory, and since the claim was submitted before the approval of the resolution plan, it should not have been rejected for being late. However, the Tribunal upheld the rejection on the grounds of the claim being time-barred as it was not enforceable. 2. Entitlement of Interest on Delayed Payments under MSME Act: - IA No. 659/2020: The applicant sought admission of interest on delayed payments under the MSME Act. The Tribunal noted that the MSME Act requires disputes to be referred to the MSME Facilitation Council for adjudication. Without an order from the MSME Council, the interest claim could not be admitted. The IA was dismissed. - IA No. 707/2020: This IA was identical to IA No. 659/2020 and was dismissed on the same grounds. 3. Validity of Rejection of Claims Based on Time-Barred Debts: - IA No. 249/2020: The Tribunal found the rejection of the claim on the grounds of being time-barred to be unsustainable as the claim was supported by a court decree still enforceable. - IA No. 667/2020: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the claim on the grounds of being time-barred as the applicant failed to demonstrate enforceability of the debt. 4. Removal and Eligibility of the Resolution Professional (RP): - IA Nos. 265/2020, 266/2020, 462/2020, and 466/2020: These applications sought the removal of the RP and actions against the RP and his counsel. The Tribunal noted that the CIRP process had reached finality with a resolution plan approved by the COC. Allegations against the RP were to be adjudicated by the IBBI. The Tribunal disposed of these IAs, allowing the applicant to take further steps based on IBBI's decision. 5. Consideration of One Time Settlement (OTS) Proposals by the Committee of Creditors (COC): - IA No. 817/2020: The applicant sought reconsideration of an OTS proposal higher than the approved resolution plan. The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction over OTS proposals, which are within the purview of lenders. The IA was dismissed. - IA No. 816/2020: This IA sought identical relief to IA No. 817/2020 and was dismissed for the same reasons. Conclusion: The Tribunal provided clear directives on the admissibility of claims, emphasizing the enforceability of debts and the procedural requirements under the MSME Act. It upheld the RP's actions where claims were time-barred and dismissed applications seeking removal of the RP, directing such matters to the IBBI. The Tribunal also clarified its lack of jurisdiction over OTS proposals, reinforcing the autonomy of lenders in such decisions.
|
