9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1272 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking direction to 1st Respondent to admit the claim - Section 68 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - The reason for rejection stated by the Resolution Professional in her reply statement is that as per the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor an amount of ₹ 91,05,993.26/- equivalent to USD 1,41,847.05 is only payable to the Applicant, as this amount reflects in the Audited Financial Statement of the Corporate Debtor. The excess amount claimed by the Applicant has already been received by them from the Corporate Debtor and this amount was adjusted by the Applicant against the dues of Matheel. Hence the Resolution Professional has not accepted that amount which has already been paid. If that amount is also accepted by the Resolution Professional, that would be violation of the IBC and detrimental to the interests of other creditors of the Corporate Debtor. Moreover, the applicant has not disputed the receipt of such amount from the Corporate Debtor. There are no reason to entertain this application - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Admission of total claim amount. 2. Allegation of fraud by respondents. 3. Request for investigation by SFIO. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admission of Total Claim Amount: The applicant, M/s Roxcel Trading GmbH, sought the admission of a claim amount of USD 16,74,303.61 against NUI Pulp & Paper Industries Private Limited. The applicant had previously filed an application under Section 9(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, which was transferred and renumbered as TIBA No. 25/KOB/2019. The applicant provided a detailed statement of accounts and supporting documents. The respondent, NUI Pulp & Paper Industries, acknowledged some invoices but disputed others. The Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditor had accepted supplies, but the Corporate Debtor failed to clear the payment, leading to the demand notice sent on 22.03.2019. Despite reminders, the Corporate Debtor did not settle the dues, leading to the initiation of CIRP. The Resolution Professional (RP) provisionally admitted a claim of USD 1,111,460.49 and rejected USD 12,39,816.90. The Tribunal found that the RP's rejection was based on legitimate grounds, including the lack of proof of acceptance of apportionment by NUI and the payments already made by the Corporate Debtor. 2. Allegation of Fraud by Respondents: The applicant alleged fraud by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in collusion with officials of the 4th respondent, seeking action under Section 68 of the IBC, 2016. The Tribunal noted that Section 68 pertains to the willful concealment, destruction, or falsification of records by officers of the corporate debtor, punishable by imprisonment or fines. The applicant argued that the fraud was evident from the RP's independent conclusion that a forensic audit was necessary. The respondents countered that the allegations were baseless and aimed at achieving malicious purposes. The Tribunal found that the RP had acted within her duties under Section 25 of the IBC, 2016, and that the claims of fraud were not substantiated by sufficient evidence. 3. Request for Investigation by SFIO: The applicant requested an investigation into the affairs of NUI Pulp & Paper Industries by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal noted that Section 213 provides specific circumstances under which an investigation can be ordered. The respondents argued that the RP, with limited powers, could not be held responsible for answering allegations requiring an SFIO investigation. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided clear evidence to warrant such an investigation and that the RP and the Committee of Creditors (COC) had already thoroughly verified the facts and records. Conclusion: The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and reviewing the documents, concluded that the RP's rejection of the excess claim amount was justified. The Tribunal found no reason to entertain the application for fraud allegations or to order an SFIO investigation. Consequently, IA No. 33/KOB/2021 was dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the IBC provisions and protecting the interests of all creditors involved in the CIRP.
|
