9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 655 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyCondonation of delay of 236 days in filing the miscellaneous application - HELD THAT - In the present case it is seen that inspite of Liquidator intimating to the Applicant to file its claim, the Applicant has not preferred to file its claim before the Liquidator on time and has filed this Application seeking condonation of delay of 236 days in filing the miscellaneous application seeking to set aside the rejection of claim order passed by the Respondent. Further, the reasons ascribed to the same was that due to pandemic, they are unable to file the Application. The averments made in the Counter, it is seen that all the properties of the Corporate Debtor are sold and the sale proceeds have been realized and distributed to the stakeholders under Section 53 of IBC, 2016 and pursuant thereto, the Liquidator has also filed an Application seeking dissolution of the Corporate Debtor, which is pending adjudication before this Tribunal. Hence, the delay cannot be condoned since the realization has already been made - Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing a miscellaneous application to set aside rejection order. 2. Default in repayment by the Corporate Debtor. 3. Claim rejection due to missed timeline for submission. 4. Failure to file claim during CIRP period. 5. Unregistered charge of the Applicant with RoC. 6. Sale of movable assets and distribution of proceeds. 7. Application for dissolution pending adjudication. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Applicant sought relief under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to condone a 236-day delay in filing a miscellaneous application to set aside the rejection order dated 06.03.2020 by the Respondent/Resolution Professional. The Applicant's Counsel argued that the Corporate Debtor defaulted on a loan availed for purchasing a vehicle, leading to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) without the Applicant's notice. 2. The Applicant's claim, filed belatedly on 27.02.2020, was rejected by the Liquidator on the grounds of missing the timeline for submission of claims. The rejection was based on the Liquidation announcement date of 24.12.2019 and a failed notice sent to the Branch Office. The Applicant attributed the delay in filing the claim to the pandemic-induced lockdown. 3. The Respondent contended that the Applicant failed to file a claim during the CIRP period despite notifications and reminders. Additionally, the Respondent highlighted that the Applicant's purported charge was not registered with the Registrar of Companies (RoC). The Respondent proceeded with an E-Auction sale of the Corporate Debtor's assets, including the vehicles claimed by the Applicant, and distributed the proceeds among creditors. 4. The Liquidator's actions included selling all assets of the Corporate Debtor, movable and immovable, and initiating dissolution proceedings under Section 54 of the IBC, 2016. The delay in filing the miscellaneous application was not condoned due to the completion of asset realization and distribution to stakeholders. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's application based on these circumstances and the pending dissolution proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the failure of the Applicant to timely file the claim, the completion of asset realization and distribution, and the pending dissolution proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the application seeking relief for the delay in filing.
|
