9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 413 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyAdmissibility of claim after implementation of Resolution Plan - Appellant has alleged that the impugned order has failed to balance the interest of all stakeholders including operational creditors and therefore stand vitiated - HELD THAT - This Appellate Tribunal observes that the Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority has taken care of the interest of all the stakeholders who have filed claim with the IRP/RP. It is noted that the Appellant has not filed any claim with the IRP/RP nor raised any issue during the entire CIRP period or during the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the Appellant at this stage cannot be allowed to raise such issues especially when the Resolution Plan stand implemented. This Appellate Tribunal observes that the claim of the Appellant is of pre-CIRP period and moreover the Appellant has not even filed any claim with the IRP/RP and this Appellate Tribunal has held in several judgments that pre-CIRP dues cannot be recovered unless the creditor files a claim with the IRP/RP - It may be mentioned that once the resolution plan is approved, the said plan attains finality and becomes binding on all the stakeholders and after the approval of resolution plan, no fresh claim can be entertained. This Appellate Tribunal notes that the very intent of the I B Code, 2016 is for the revival of the Corporate Debtor and the matter has been greatly amplified by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ghanshyam Mishra 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT as well as catena of the other Judgments where it has been settled, loud and clear, that no claim remains/ sustains after the Resolution Plan is approved. If such claims are to be entertained at later stage then no Resolution Plan will ever be successful since uncertain, unclaimed and non- admitted claims will be keep on pouring in and subsequently the implementation of the Resolution Plan would be almost impossible. This Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that after the implementation of the Resolution Plan, no subsequent claim can be entertained. This Appellate Tribunal has no hesitation in recording that the present appeal is not maintainable since the appellant has failed to submit its claim before the IRP at the time of invitation of claim from creditors on 14.09.2018 wherein the last date of submission of claim was stipulated as 28.09.2018 hence, the Appellant cannot claim at this late stage. There are no error in the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 - appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Conformity of the Resolution Plan with Section 30 & 31 of the I & B Code, 2016. 2. Treatment of Operational Creditors, including electricity dues. 3. Adjudicating Authority's delegation of judicial functions to the CoC. 4. Non-service of notice to the Operational Creditor under Section 24(3) of the I & B Code, 2016. 5. Applicability of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Supply Code in the context of I & B Code, 2016. Summary: 1. Conformity of the Resolution Plan with Section 30 & 31 of the I & B Code, 2016: The Appellant contended that the Resolution Plan did not comply with Section 30 & 31 of the I & B Code, 2016, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Essar Steel India Limited. The Appellant alleged that the impugned order failed to balance the interests of all stakeholders, including operational creditors, and did not provide equal treatment to operational creditors as compared to financial creditors. 2. Treatment of Operational Creditors, including electricity dues: The Appellant argued that the Resolution Plan did not account for the full outstanding electricity dues of Rs. 20,24,789/- and provided only Rs. 2,03,813/-. The Appellant emphasized that electricity dues should be paid in full as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Essar Steel India Limited, which stated that essential services like electricity should not be compromised. The Respondent countered that the Appellant did not file any claim during the CIRP, and the Resolution Plan, approved by the CoC, provided for all creditors in their commercial wisdom. 3. Adjudicating Authority's delegation of judicial functions to the CoC: The Appellant claimed that the Adjudicating Authority improperly delegated its judicial functions to the CoC by directing them to examine the Resolution Plan's conformity with the Supreme Court's decision in Essar Steel India Limited. The Respondent argued that the CoC's commercial wisdom in approving the Resolution Plan should not be subject to judicial review. 4. Non-service of notice to the Operational Creditor under Section 24(3) of the I & B Code, 2016: The Appellant contended that they were not served notice under Section 24(3) of the I & B Code, 2016, by the Resolution Professional. The Tribunal noted that as per Section 24(3)(c), operational creditors are not entitled to notice unless their aggregate dues are not less than ten percent of the debt, which was not the case here. 5. Applicability of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Supply Code in the context of I & B Code, 2016: The Appellant argued that electricity dues take precedence under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Regulation 4.12 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Supply Code. The Tribunal dismissed this contention, citing Section 238 of the I & B Code, 2016, which has a non-obstante clause giving it precedence over other laws. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no error in the impugned order dated 05.03.2020, noting that the Resolution Plan had been implemented and no subsequent claims could be entertained. The Tribunal directed the Respondent No. 2 to pay the security deposit to the Appellant. The appeal was disposed of with no cost, and interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.
|
