9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 1064 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySettlement of belated claims - Condonation of delay in filing the claim - direction to Resolution Professional to admit the claim of the Appellant s in the category of Financial Creditor - Since the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the CoC, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim of the Appellant by the impugned order - whether claims are barred or not in terms of the provisions of IBC and Regulation 12(2) of the CIRP Regulations and also various judicial precedents? - HELD THAT - In the instant case the date of RFRP issue date is prior to the date of COC meeting which has approved the Resolution plan. Even if later date is taken to the advantage of the Appellant as per above provision, which is later than 90 days, it will not help the Appellant due to peculiar facts of the case, where the claim has been filed after the approval of Resolution Plan by the COC. For condonation of delay in filing the claims, the Appellant has tried to rely upon Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 titled In Re Cognizance for Extension of limitation of Hon ble Apex Court 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER . The protection with regard to extension of limitation granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court commences from 15.03.2020 and grants protection to cases only where limitation would have expired during the period of 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. In the instant case, the time period available with the Appellants, even after 90 days, expired on 13.01.2020, much before the Covid-19 crises began, meaning that the protection granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 cannot be relied upon to seek refuge. The issue regarding the belated claims is further enunciated in Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. vs. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited, 2021 (8) TMI 553 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has concluded that the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) is to determine whether the resolution plan, as approved by the CoC, complies with the requirements of Section 30(2). The NCLT is within its jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan which accords with the IBC. There is no equity-based jurisdiction with the NCLT, under the provisions of the IBC. In the instant case belated claims have been considered upto 90 days and also of those whose information exists in CRM database, even though they have not filed the claims. The Appellant has filed its claims after 540 days in terms of Section 15 of the Code and approximately two months after the approval of the plan from the CoC on 07.05.2021. The IBC is a time bound process and the Appellant cannot be allowed to reopen this chapter and unleash the hydra headed monster of undecided claims on the Resolution Applicant. Belated claim of the Appellant could not have been accepted by the RP after approval of plan by the Committee of Creditors - Appellant could not have been allowed by the Adjudicating Authority as the CoC in its commercial wisdom had approved the resolution plan on 07.05.2021 itself and the said resolution plan provides for specific treatment of belated claims, if any. Whether on the basis the materials on record, it can be concluded that the Appellant is a homebuyer or not? - HELD THAT - Pertinently, the Allotment Letter and the Buy Back Agreement mention different unit numbers while the Allotment Letter mentions the unit no. D2- 601, the Buy Back Agreement mentions unit no. D2-2002. Further, there is no proof of actual disbursement of the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- by the Appellant to the Corporate Debtor, such as bank statement, audited accounts, etc. Further, the said payment is not recorded in the Corporate Debtor s books of accounts. All the above facts do not lend credence to the Appellant s assertion that she is a genuine homebuyer. In fact, the Appellant herself filed the Claim in Form-C as a Financial Creditor, and not in Form CA as a Homebuyer. Further, the Appellant s name also does not find mention in the List of Homebuyers who have not submitted Claims published by the Resolution Professional. The claim that the Corporate Debtor has received benefit from the allotment of the Appellant, which now stands void and in compliance of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Respondents are liable to restore the benefit received from the allotment of units is not borne out of the facts of this case. As per the records of the Corporate Debtor, there exists no allotment in the Appellant and nor has any acceptable evidence been produced for the receipt of Rs. 50 Lacs by the Corporate Debtor. From the materials on record, it is noticed that in compliance with the provisions of IBC, the Resolution Professional has undertaken various activities relating to collation and verification of the claims and upon due verification of the books of the account of the Corporate Debtor, it duly reflected the units qua which the claims have been received and the units for which claims have been not received - there are no substance in the claim of the Appellant that the resolution professional has failed to carry out statutory duties as prescribed under Section 25 of the Code. The claim of the Appellant is that since approval of Resolution Plan is pending before the Adjudicating Authority, its claim can be considered on merits. This issue is examined in detail basis the facts of the case, wherein the Appellant seeks condonation of 540 days and basis the current position of law. It becomes unsustainable to accede to his request to allow his belated claim to be considered, particularly in the background that there is no acceptable material on record to suggest actual disbursement of Rs.50 lakhs to the Corporate Debtor and more so when the Appellant itself has filed Form C and not CA raising its claim. Overall, the delay in filing the claim, lack of credible evidence, and inconsistencies undermine the Appellant's case. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the belated claim is upheld, as it aligns with the time-bound nature of CIRP proceedings and the absence of legal grounds for indulgence. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Claim 2. Validity of the Appellant's Claim as a Homebuyer 3. Compliance with Statutory Duties by the Resolution Professional 4. Impact of Belated Claims on the Resolution Plan Summary: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Claim: The Appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the claim, arguing that the delay was neither intentional nor willful but due to lack of knowledge of the proceedings. The Appellant relied on the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 for extension of limitation due to Covid-19. However, the Tribunal noted that the time period available with the Appellant expired on 13.01.2020, before the Covid-19 crisis began, making the Supreme Court's order inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized that the IBC is a time-bound process and belated claims cannot be entertained after the stipulated period. 2. Validity of the Appellant's Claim as a Homebuyer: The Appellant claimed to have booked a flat and paid Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash, supported by a receipt dated 15.05.2016. However, the Tribunal found that the receipt lacked serial number, receipt number, or diary number and was not accounted for in the books of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the documents provided by the Appellant, including different unit numbers mentioned in the Allotment Letter and Buy Back Agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to provide credible evidence to support the claim and noted that the unit in question was registered in another individual's name in the Corporate Debtor's records. 3. Compliance with Statutory Duties by the Resolution Professional: The Appellant alleged that the Resolution Professional failed to carry out statutory duties as prescribed u/s 25 of the IBC. The Tribunal, however, found that the Resolution Professional had undertaken various activities relating to collation and verification of claims and had duly reflected the units for which claims were received and those for which claims were not received. The Tribunal concluded that the Resolution Professional complied with the statutory duties. 4. Impact of Belated Claims on the Resolution Plan: The Tribunal highlighted that the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the CoC on 07.05.2021, and the Appellant filed the claim on 20.07.2021, after a delay of 552 days. The Tribunal referred to multiple judicial precedents, including "Essar Steel v Satish Gupta & Ors" and "Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Others v. NBCC (India) Limited and Others," which emphasized that belated claims cannot be entertained and that the resolution process should not be disrupted by undecided claims. The Tribunal upheld the commercial wisdom of the CoC and the importance of adhering to the timelines prescribed in the IBC. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the belated claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay in filing the claim, lack of credible evidence, and inconsistencies undermined the Appellant's case, and the proceedings under the IBC are time-bound, leaving no room for indulgence in belated claims.
|
