2022 (5) TMI 81 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

CIRP - Validity of claims of the respondents 2 to 7 admitted by the 1st respondent - adjudication of such claims and fixing the same on the basis of the documents/evidences produced by the applicant and the documents or other evidences as may be produced by the respondents - HELD THAT - After a detailed hearing and considering all the contentions of both sides, this Tribunal vide order dated 20.09.2021 dismissed that MA with costs of Rs. 25,000/- which according to the Liquidator, the applicants therein have not paid - Without complying with the direction in that order, the applicant has again moved this Tribunal taking some other contentions regarding the non-acceptance of his claim and the interest levied by the Federal Bank. The Liquidator has satisfactorily clarified why his claim was not accepted and the interest charged by the Bank is as per the agreement between the Bank and the Corporate Debtor. It appears to us, that the only intention of the applicant is to delay the proceedings in one way or the other approaching various forums including the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, wherein all his attempts were failed. From the verification of the earlier proceedings of this matter, it is seen that the Suspended Directors are not at all co-operating in the CIR Process and they were only on the lookout of creating hurdle to the continuation of CIR Process. Moreover, the applicant herein is a shareholder of the Company and as rightly pointed out by the Respondents that he is not entitled to claim any relief against the CoC or the conduct of the CIRP. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the claims admitted by the Liquidator.
2. Applicant's claim for Rs. 2,93,17,492.65.
3. Liquidator's verification and decision on claims.
4. Admission of the 2nd Respondent Bank's claim.
5. Time-barred and illegal status of the Bank Guarantee.
6. Non-provision of documents by the Liquidator.
7. Alleged non-cooperation and delay tactics by the applicant.
8. Previous tribunal orders and their non-compliance by the applicant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Claims Admitted by the Liquidator:
The applicant, a shareholder of M/s. Sargam Builders Pvt. Ltd., sought to set aside the claims of respondents 2 to 7 admitted by the Liquidator. The Tribunal noted that the Liquidator admitted the claims based on the documents provided by the respondents and found no fault in the Liquidator's procedure.

2. Applicant's Claim for Rs. 2,93,17,492.65:
The applicant, also a Financial Creditor, claimed Rs. 2,93,17,492.65. The Liquidator did not accept this claim, prompting the applicant to file for relief. The Tribunal found that the Liquidator had satisfactorily clarified the reasons for not accepting the claim, which were based on the agreement between the Bank and the Corporate Debtor.

3. Liquidator's Verification and Decision on Claims:
Under Sections 39 and 40 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Liquidator must verify and decide on claims. The applicant argued that the Liquidator failed to communicate his decisions. The Tribunal, however, found that the Liquidator had followed the required procedures and that the applicant’s allegations were unfounded.

4. Admission of the 2nd Respondent Bank's Claim:
The applicant challenged the admission of the 2nd Respondent Bank's claim of Rs. 5,41,90,029/- as illegal, arguing it included an unjustified pendente lite interest. The Tribunal upheld the Liquidator's decision, noting that the interest was in line with the agreement and banking principles, and dismissed the applicant's contention.

5. Time-barred and Illegal Status of the Bank Guarantee:
The applicant contended that the Bank Guarantee was time-barred and illegal. The Tribunal found that the Bank Guarantee was valid and that the Liquidator correctly admitted the claim based on the available documents and acknowledgments of debt by the Corporate Debtor.

6. Non-provision of Documents by the Liquidator:
The applicant alleged that the Liquidator did not provide copies of the Minutes of the Stakeholders Committee Meetings. The Tribunal found that the Liquidator had shared the necessary documents upon obtaining a Non-Disclosure Undertaking and that the applicant's claims were misleading.

7. Alleged Non-cooperation and Delay Tactics by the Applicant:
The Liquidator and respondents argued that the applicant was not cooperating and was using delay tactics. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the applicant had a history of challenging procedures and orders, including appeals to higher courts, all of which had failed.

8. Previous Tribunal Orders and Their Non-compliance by the Applicant:
The Tribunal highlighted that the applicant had previously filed similar contentions in MA No.207/KOB/2020, which was dismissed with costs. The applicant did not comply with the cost order and continued to file applications, which the Tribunal viewed as attempts to delay the liquidation process.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both applications (IA(IBC)/161/KOB/2021 & MA(IBC) 39/KOB/2021), finding the applicant's actions to be without merit and aimed at delaying the proceedings. The Tribunal refrained from imposing additional costs despite the applicant's repeated and unfounded challenges.

Dated this, the 21st day of April, 2022.