9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 351 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking refund to the Corporate Debtor with interest being the amounts illegally retained by them and which amounts were given during moratorium period for supply of goods/components - punishment for contravention of Section 14, 31 and Section 74 of IBC for siphoning off proceeds of Corporate Debtor in contravention of Moratorium imposed by this Hon ble Tribunal - HELD THAT - It is an admitted case that the Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 02.04.2019 and thereafter, I.A. No. 3927 of 2020 was filed on 14.09.2020 before the Adjudicating Authority approximately after 18 months of approval of the Resolution Plan. Keeping in view of the aforenoted facts, we agree with the reasons given by the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the impugned order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-II) in (IB) 334(ND)/2017 in IA/3927/2020 1356/2021 is hereby affirmed. The instant Appeal is hereby dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of Rs. 12,30,457/- with interest for amounts retained during the moratorium period. 2. Alleged contravention of Sections 14, 31, and 74 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 3. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority post-approval of the Resolution Plan. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Refund of Rs. 12,30,457/- with interest for amounts retained during the moratorium period The Corporate Debtor filed applications seeking a refund of Rs. 12,30,457/- paid to the Respondents during the moratorium period for the supply of goods/components, which were allegedly not supplied. The Tribunal dismissed these applications, holding that the Respondents were not required to refund the amount as there was no violation of the provisions under Section 14, 31, and 74 of the IBC. The Appellants argued that the Respondents wrongfully retained the money given to them during the CIRP proceedings and failed to supply the goods/components, thereby violating the moratorium. They relied on the judgment in 'Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited' to assert that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims are frozen and binding on all stakeholders. The Respondents contended that the application did not specify the provisions under which the prayers were sought and that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction as the application was filed 18 months after the resolution plan's approval. They argued that the Adjudicating Authority is not a civil court and cannot adjudicate issues requiring a trial of facts and circumstances, which fall outside the scope of the IBC. Issue 2: Alleged contravention of Sections 14, 31, and 74 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) The Appellants claimed that the Respondents' actions violated Section 14 (moratorium), Section 31 (approval of resolution plan), and Section 74 (punishment for contravention) of the IBC. They argued that the Respondents retained the amounts given in trust during the moratorium period, contrary to the IBC's provisions. The Tribunal, however, found no violation of these sections by the Respondents. The Respondents maintained that upon the resolution plan's approval, no claims could be raised against the Corporate Debtor, and all undecided claims stood extinguished, as supported by the judgments in 'Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta' and 'Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited'. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority post-approval of the Resolution Plan The Respondents argued that the Adjudicating Authority became functus officio (having no further authority) after approving the resolution plan on 02.04.2019. They cited Section 60(5) of the IBC, which limits the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction to ongoing CIRP or liquidation proceedings. Since the application was filed 18 months after the resolution plan's approval, the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondents, noting that the application was filed long after the resolution plan's approval, and thus, the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's decision, agreeing that there was no violation of the IBC provisions by the Respondents and that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application filed 18 months post-approval of the resolution plan. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
|
