2022 (4) TMI 263 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of claim against Corporate Debtor or not - rejection of the claim by the Liquidator - Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the Appellant did not file any claim during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process only after receipt of S3G demand notice, the Appellant filed its claim form (Form C ) as the Operational Creditor of the Respondent. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code stipulates a time bound Resolution Process. Keeping in view the ratio of the Judgment passed by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. Vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd. (CoC), 2021 (9) TMI 672 - SUPREME COURT , it can be held that in the absence of filing of the claim within the stipulated time, the Appellant now cannot seek realisation of the claim amounts at this belated stage. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against rejection of claim by Liquidator
- Timeliness of filing claim during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
- Admissibility of claim and rejection by Liquidator
- Maintainability of the appeal and adherence to time-bound resolution process

Analysis:
1. Appeal under Section 61 of the IBC: The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of its claim by the Liquidator under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal was based on the claim amount of USD 645,850.33, which included the outstanding balance and interest. The Liquidator rejected the claim after receiving the necessary documents and information from the appellant, leading to the filing of the appeal.

2. Timeliness of Filing Claim: The issue of timeliness arose as the appellant filed the claim form almost six months after the respondent was directed to be liquidated. The appellant's claim was filed only after receiving a demand notice for repayment of the advanced funds. The tribunal noted that the appellant did not file any claim during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and raised the claim belatedly, which was viewed as an attempt to evade liability.

3. Admissibility of Claim and Rejection by Liquidator: The appellant contended that the invoices had been admitted by the corporate debtor, and the claim was denied based on partial payment grounds. The Liquidator rejected the claim after verifying the documents and information provided by the appellant. The rejection was based on the books of accounts of the corporate debtor and the supporting documents submitted by the appellant.

4. Maintainability of the Appeal and Time-Bound Resolution Process: The tribunal found that the appellant did not file a separate appeal against the Liquidator's decision but filed an application that was dismissed. The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the time-bound resolution process under the IBC. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the tribunal held that the appellant could not seek realization of claim amounts at a belated stage, especially after missing the stipulated time for filing claims.

Conclusion:
The tribunal affirmed the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to dismiss the appellant's appeal. It found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in the instant appeal. The tribunal highlighted the importance of timely filing claims during the resolution process and upheld the time-bound nature of the insolvency proceedings. The judgment was to be uploaded on the tribunal's website and sent to the Adjudicating Authority promptly.