9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 636 - AT - IBCDismissal of application seeking admission of additional claim in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor - admission of belated additional claim filed by the Appellant-Employee Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) on 08.06.2023 after the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 01.09.2022 - HELD THAT - It is an uncontested fact that till the stage of approval of the plan by the CoC the Appellant had not filed their additional claim. The additional claim was filed on 08.06.2023. The Corporate Debtor had been admitted into CIRP on 06.12.2021 and the 90 days period for filing of claim from the insolvency commencement date stood expired on 06.03.2022. Viewed from this angle the filing of additional claims entailed a delay of nearly one year and three months. Viewed from the perspective of last date for submission of claims as per public announcement which was 03.01.2022 there was a clear delay of 521 days from the last date of submission of the claim. When counted from the date of approval of the plan by the CoC nearly 09 months had elapsed since then. That there was delay on the part of the Appellant in the submission of the additional claims is therefore well established. It does not appeal to reason that it could have taken two years from the date of passing of the order by the Industrial Court to compute the additional claims. The Adjudicating Authority in its impugned order has therefore rightly observed that there was sufficient time for Appellant-EPFO to pass an order under EPF Act when the Industrial Court order had passed its orders in 2019 while CIRP was initiated in 2021. The Appellant cannot take advantage of their own laxity in not filing their claims on time to derail the insolvency resolution process. From a plain reading of the CIRP Regulations RP can accept claims as per extended period as provided in Regulation 12(1) of CIRP Regulations. After the lapse of extended period of 90 days of the insolvency commencement date the RP is neither obliged to accept any claim nor does he have the discretion to admit claim after the extended period. Further when we look at the material placed on record it is found that the RP while rejecting the additional claim of the Appellant on 05.07.2023 had maintained due transparency and kept the Appellant apprised of its decision. The rejection e-mail of 05.07.2023 is placed at page 437-438 of the Appeal Paper Book (APB). The RP while rejecting the additional claim gave detailed reasoning for doing so. It was clearly pointed out that the additional claim had been filed much beyond the time-period prescribed under the IBC and the Regulations framed thereunder. In the facts of the present case there is no dispute with the facts that the additional claims made by the Appellant were placed before the RP by the Appellant after approval of the resolution plan by the CoC. In terms of the Ghanashyam Mishra 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT the additional claim not being part of the resolution plan stood extinguished and therefore no proceedings could be continued in respect of such claims as allowing such belated additional claims would come in the way of the SRA in reviving the operations of the Corporate Debtor on a clean slate. It has also been clearly held by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in M/s RP Infrastructure Ltd. vs Mukul Kumar Anr. 2023 (9) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT that after the resolution plan is approved by the CoC but pending before the Adjudicating Authority no new claims can be thrust upon the resolution applicant. Once the CoC has approved a Resolution Plan the same becomes binding on all stakeholders and no additional claims can be entertained. The approved plan as sanctioned by the CoC is binding and must be implemented as per its terms. Any deviation at this stage would compromise the very purpose of insolvency resolution. If belated claims of creditors are casually and mechanically accepted by the RP even after approval of the plan by the CoC it would imperil the successful resolution of the Corporate Debtor and frustrate the objectives of IBC. Conclusion - On approval of the resolution plan by the CoC there is a closure to all claims. Had the RP taken cognisance of the belated additional claim of the Appellant it would have resulted in re-opening of the resolution plan which would militate against the statutory scheme of IBC and tantamount to infringement of the clean slate theory of the Hon ble Apex Court. Further when the claims have been filed belatedly the RP s action to reject the claim by way of a reasoned reply to the Appellant cannot therefore be put to fault. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in the given facts and circumstances in upholding the decision of the RP to reject the belated additional claims of the Appellant. Appeal dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question considered by the Tribunal was whether the additional claim filed by the Appellant-Employee Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) on 08.06.2023, after the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 01.09.2022, should be admitted. This involved examining the statutory framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and its regulations, particularly concerning the timeliness of claim submissions during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal referred to the IBC and its regulations, which outline the process for submitting claims during CIRP. Section 18(1)(b) of the IBC mandates the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to receive and collate all claims submitted by creditors following a public announcement. The Tribunal also considered precedents from the Supreme Court, including the "clean slate" theory, which emphasizes that a resolution plan, once approved by the CoC, is binding on all stakeholders and should not be disrupted by new claims. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted the IBC framework to mean that claims must be submitted within the stipulated timeline. It emphasized that the RP's role is to collate claims within the prescribed period and that any delay beyond this period cannot be entertained. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the "clean slate" principle, which aims to provide certainty and finality in insolvency proceedings by preventing new claims after the resolution plan's approval. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had initially filed a claim of Rs 7.49 Cr., which was admitted by the RP and included in the resolution plan approved by the CoC. However, the additional claim of Rs 34.31 Cr. was filed significantly after the CoC's approval of the resolution plan. The Tribunal found no justification for the delay, as the Appellant was aware of the Industrial Court's order that formed the basis of the additional claim well before the CIRP commenced. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the IBC's provisions and the Supreme Court's precedents to conclude that the additional claim was time-barred. It found that the RP had acted within the legal framework by rejecting the claim due to its late submission. The Tribunal also noted that the RP's rejection was communicated transparently, with detailed reasons provided to the Appellant. Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant argued that statutory obligations, such as PF dues, cannot be compromised under insolvency proceedings, citing the overriding provisions of the EPF & MP Act. However, the Tribunal found that while statutory obligations must be fulfilled, they must also be claimed within the prescribed timeline. The Respondents argued that allowing belated claims would undermine the CIRP's integrity and the finality of the resolution plan, which the Tribunal found persuasive. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the additional claim could not be admitted due to the delay in its submission. It upheld the RP's decision to reject the claim and the Adjudicating Authority's order affirming this rejection. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal preserved the principle that once a resolution plan is approved by the CoC, it is binding on all stakeholders, and no new claims can be entertained. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the IBC's timelines to ensure the CIRP's effectiveness and finality. The Tribunal quoted the Supreme Court's "clean slate" theory, highlighting that allowing new claims post-approval would disrupt the resolution process and the plan's implementation. The Tribunal's final determination was to dismiss the appeal, finding no error in the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the additional claims. It reiterated the necessity of adhering to the statutory framework and the Supreme Court's guidance to maintain the CIRP's integrity and objectives.
|
