2022 (7) TMI 1189 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking direction to Resolution Professional to accept the remaining claim along with interest in terms of Section 16 of M.S.M.E. Act, 2006 up to the date of actual realization - HELD THAT - It is clear that the Resolution Professional conveyed the status of the claims of the applicant upon review of documents submitted by applicant. He was asked to submit additional information within 7 days thereafter - It is also significant to note, according to the applicant in paragraph 5, the contract was completed somewhere in August, 2015 and the claim for loss of profit damages etc. in delayed payments has been claimed for the first time before the Resolution Professional only somewhere in 2019. The alleged default, at page 6 of the application is stated to have taken place on 1st of August, 2015. It is clear that the applicant never took any steps for adjudication of his claims before any forum competent for this and notwithstanding, apparently failed to furnish the required information/documents before Resolution Professional. This Adjudicating Authority cannot adjudicate upon the question of loss or profit interest etc. This Tribunal in its summary jurisdiction can in no way go into crystallizing the alleged claims. It is clear from the above position that the works were executed somewhere in 2015 and the claims have been raised for the first time before the Resolution Professional and that too has been observed by Resolution Professional without the required documents in support. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking direction for acceptance of remaining claim.
- Dispute regarding payment for items/services supplied by the applicant to the Corporate Debtor.
- Allegation of inordinate delay causing loss of interest and profit.
- Rejection of claim amount by Resolution Professional.
- Jurisdictional issue related to MSME Act claims and adjudication authority.

Analysis:

1. The applicant filed an application seeking direction for the Resolution Professional to accept the remaining claim along with interest under Section 16 of the MSME Act, 2006. The applicant supplied items/services to the Corporate Debtor and claimed a loss of interest and profit due to delay in payment.

2. The Resolution Professional rejected a part of the claim amount as unsubstantiated, leading to a dispute. The applicant argued that the rejection was erroneous and highlighted the loss suffered due to the delay in payment, seeking compensation for the same.

3. The Resolution Professional contended that the remaining claim was not substantiated with proper proof and that such claims fall under remote damages subject to adjudication. Moreover, the Resolution Professional lacked the authority to decide claims under the MSME Act, which should be addressed by the Facilitation Council.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that the applicant failed to provide necessary documents to support the claim adequately. The Tribunal noted the delay in raising the claim before the Resolution Professional and emphasized that it cannot adjudicate on loss or profit claims without proper substantiation.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application, citing the lack of supporting documents and the delayed submission of the claim. The Tribunal clarified its jurisdictional limitations in crystallizing claims and highlighted the procedural lapses in presenting the claim before the Resolution Professional.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, including the dispute over the claim amount, the role of the Resolution Professional, and the jurisdictional aspects related to the MSME Act claims.