9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 246 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyValidity of Resolution Plan - the application of the then Resolution Professional under Section 30(6) of the IBC has been allowed without considering the claim of the Appellant - whether the claim filed by the Appellant is within the time period specified in the public announcement and the extended time period of 90 days included in Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016? - whether a claim, if filed after the specified time period, could be considered at this belated stage? - HELD THAT - It is admitted by the Appellant that he filed the claim on 1.1.2020. The affidavit submitted by erstwhile RP Respondent No. 2 (diary no. 30107 dated 20.8.2021) makes it clear that the 90 days period after the public announcement as allowed in the CIRP Regulations (supra) for filing proof of claims expired on 9.2.2019. Moreover the RP vide letter dated 3.1.2020 communicated to the Appellant the fact of rejection of his claim and also that the Resolution Plan is already under consideration of the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the fact of rejection of his claim was within the knowledge of Appellant from 3.1.2020. It is noted that the Resolution Plan was submitted for approval to the Adjudicating Authority on 4.9.2020, which was much before the claim was filed by the Appellant. The erstwhile RP has stated in his additional affidavit that the claim of the Appellant did not form part of the Resolution Plan as it was filed belatedly and rejected by the Resolution Professional. The Resolution Plan as approved by the Adjudicating Authority, and which does not include the claim of Appellant since it was filed much belatedly, does not need any interference - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appellant aggrieved by Impugned Order allowing Resolution Professional's application without considering Appellant's claim. 2. Appellant's claim rejected by Resolution Professional, leading to appeal under IBC. 3. Dispute over Appellant's claim amount and its consideration in the distribution. 4. Erstwhile RP's role and submission of facts in response to the appeal. 5. Arguments presented by the Appellant, Respondent No. 1, and Erstwhile RP. 6. Issue of timeliness of Appellant's claim filing and its consideration in the Resolution Plan. 7. Application of relevant legal judgments to determine the fate of the appeal. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed under Section 61 of IBC against the Impugned Order, which allowed the Resolution Professional's application without considering the Appellant's claim. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 12.11.2018, with the Resolution Plan approved on 4.9.2020 by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. The Appellant's claim of &8377; 82,50,32,950 was disputed, with a portion compromised under the "Sabka Vishwas" scheme. The Appellant contended that his claim was not adequately considered during distribution among Operational Creditors, seeking a share based on pending GST dues and the timing of his claim filing. 3. Erstwhile RP's submission clarified the rejection of Appellant's claim and its exclusion from the Resolution Plan due to belated filing. The Appellant's claim post-dated the 90-day period for claim submission, expiring on 9.2.2019, and was communicated as rejected on 3.1.2020. 4. Legal arguments revolved around the finality of Resolution Plans post-approval and the extinguishment of claims not included in the plan. The judgments cited emphasized the binding nature of approved plans and the need for clarity in claim settlements before the resolution process concludes. 5. The Tribunal, after considering all arguments and submissions, upheld the Resolution Plan's integrity, as it did not include the Appellant's belated claim. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the Resolution Plan's validity post-approval and the non-inclusion of the Appellant's claim. This detailed analysis showcases the procedural history, factual background, legal contentions, and the Tribunal's decision in a comprehensive manner, addressing each issue raised in the judgment.
|
