9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 944 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondent/Suspended Directors - wilful disobedience - time limitation - section 14(1)(c) read with 60(5)(a) of IBC - HELD THAT - The question regarding the acceptance of time barred claim and interest was considered by the Coordinate Bench HIMALAYAN CREST POWER PVT. LIMITED VERSUS PANKAJ KHAITAN RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL, M/S. SASI POWER PVT. LIMITED 2022 (2) TMI 206 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI and the time barred claim was rejected. The order passed in the application is also upheld by the Hon'ble NCLAT in 2022 (2) TMI 206 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI Therefore, applying the same principle, it is opined that the RP has rightly considered the claim and refused to accept the time barred claims and so, there is no illegality in the order dt. 21.08.2021. Therefore, the view taken by the RP need not be interfered. Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Contempt petition against suspended directors for non-compliance with tribunal order. 2. Application to reconsider rejected claim by resolution professional based on time-barred grounds. 3. Dispute over acceptance of time-barred claims and interest on rejected claims. Analysis: 1. The Contempt Petition (CP) 07/2022 was filed to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent/Suspended Directors for not complying with the tribunal's order dated 21.10.2021. The Applicant sought the initiation of contempt proceedings and compliance with the tribunal's order. The tribunal noted that the Respondents had not complied with the order to pay a specified amount within two weeks. The RP/Applicant was directed to act as per the order dated 21.10.2021. The tribunal disposed of the present IA accordingly. 2. In IA/2020/2020, the Applicant sought to condone the delay and have the Resolution Professional (RP) admit the claim that was partially rejected as time-barred. The RP had admitted part of the claim but rejected the rest as time-barred. The Applicant requested reconsideration of the rejected claim. The RP opposed, stating that time-barred claims were rightfully rejected. Referring to a previous judgment, the tribunal upheld the RP's decision, stating that the RP had rightly refused to accept the time-barred claims. The IA was dismissed for lacking merit. 3. The dispute over the acceptance of time-barred claims and interest on rejected claims was discussed based on previous judgments. The tribunal cited a specific case where time-barred claims were rejected and upheld by higher authorities. Applying the same principle, the tribunal concluded that the RP's decision to reject the time-barred claims was legal. The tribunal declined to interfere with the RP's decision, stating that there was no illegality in the order dated 21.08.2021. Consequently, the present IA was dismissed for lacking merit. Additional Directions: - The Applicant was directed to ensure uploading of the Additional Affidavit on the D.M.S within three days. - All parties were directed to upload their respective documents on the D.M.S within three days for further proceedings.
|
