9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 825 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - instant petition os filed after approval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - The date of default mentioned by the Operational Creditor is 24 July 2013, and the instant petition was filed on 09 August 2019. It is to be noted that the Corporate Debtor had was admitted into CIRP vide order dated 20 April 2017 in Company Petition 150/2017. Subsequently, a resolution plan also been approved by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 17 October 2017. The Operational creditor had not filed any claim with the Resolution Professional after the Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP and has filed the instant petition after the approval of the resolution plan. The same indicates gross negligence on part of the Operational Creditor. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra Sons Pvt Ltd v Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT lays down that when the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor, and its employees, members, creditors, including the central and state government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims which are not a part of resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan. This Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the right of the Operational Creditor to seek remedy under section 9 of the Code has been extinguished - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
- Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. - Dispute over outstanding dues between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor. - Allegations of default, forged documents, and removal of assets by the Corporate Debtor. - Legal implications of claims filed after the approval of a resolution plan. Detailed Analysis: Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: - The Operational Creditor filed a Company Petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. - The Operational Creditor claimed that the Corporate Debtor owed an aggregate sum of Rs. 31,08,005 for goods supplied between 2013 and 2015, with a pending outstanding amount of Rs. 28,64,369.69. - Despite multiple reminder mails and a demand notice, the Corporate Debtor allegedly neglected to make the payment, leading to the default. Dispute over Outstanding Dues: - The Corporate Debtor denied any outstanding debt or default, arguing that the claims were settled and barred by limitation. - Allegations were made regarding the authenticity of balance confirmations and the existence of forged documents by the Operational Creditor. - The Corporate Debtor claimed that no balance confirmations were issued after reconciliation of accounts and that the Operational Creditor's claims were time-barred. Allegations and Legal Implications: - The Operational Creditor accused the Corporate Debtor of evading payments, disposing of assets, and creating disputes to delay legitimate demands. - The Corporate Debtor refuted these claims, stating that the Operational Creditor's actions were mala fide and aimed at misleading the authorities. - The judgment highlighted legal precedents emphasizing that claims filed post-approval of a resolution plan are not maintainable, as they are considered extinguished under the Code. Conclusion: - The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the petition, citing negligence on the part of the Operational Creditor for filing claims after the approval of the resolution plan. - Legal precedents were referenced to support the decision, emphasizing the binding nature of resolution plans and the extinguishment of claims not included in such plans. - The order directed the registry to inform all parties, issued instructions for further steps, and consigned the file to the record, concluding the judgment on June 13, 2022.
|
