2019 (5) TMI 1140 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Reduction of claim - 'existence of dispute' between the 'Corporate Debtor' and the 'Operational Creditor' with regard to supply of coal - HELD THAT - This Applicant was directed to produce the invoices against the claim mentioned in the Original Company Petition but whereas this Applicant produced the invoices dated 04.11.2013 and 01.02.2014 which are not part of the Original Company Petition. It is also pertinent to mention that this Applicant also filed an appeal over the order passed by this Bench and that was dismissed, therefore it goes without saying that the order dated 18.09.2018 has attained finality. Since that order attained finality, the duty is cast upon this Applicant to place the invoices before the RP as against the dates and invoices mentioned in the Original Company Petition. This Bench therefore cannot go back as to what was said in the admission order dated 15.11.2017 or in the clarificatory order 18.09.2018 because once an order passed is pronounced by this Bench, it will become functus officio as to the adjudication already given, therefore, if at all this applicant being aggrieved of the order dated 18.09.2018, the applicant should have raised it's grievances before the Hon'ble Appellate Authority, that has not been done. As long as the order dated 18.09.2018 is not reversed, this Bench cannot go back to say that as to which invoice is correct or which collection memo is incorrect, whose version is correct or whose version is incorrect because it is not open to this Bench reopen the order dated 18.09.2018 for two reasons - one, the impugned order is based on the statement made by the applicant before the Honourable NCLAT and two, the invoices the applicant produced before the RP are not the invoices as detailed in the original petition. This fact is not even rebutted by the applicant. In any event the Resolution Plan in this case was already approved by this Bench and it is in implementation. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim for payment of ?2,39,33,935 and interest.
2. Claim for reimbursement of legal costs and insolvency resolution process costs.
3. Request for specific reasons and documents related to the CIRP.
4. Request to correct the resolution plan for compliance with IBC.
5. Request to impose costs on respondents for alleged violations and contempt.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim for Payment of ?2,39,33,935 and Interest:
The Applicant/Operational Creditor (OC) sought a direction for the payment of ?2,39,33,935 as ordered by the NCLT. The claim was initially admitted based on invoices from 16.11.2013 to 01.02.2014. However, the Resolution Professional (RP) reduced the claim to ?2,173. The NCLT noted that the Applicant failed to produce the invoices corresponding to the dates and amounts mentioned in the original petition. Instead, the Applicant submitted invoices dated 04.11.2013, which were not part of the original claim. As the order dated 18.09.2018 directing the submission of specific invoices had attained finality, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for payment as misconceived.

2. Claim for Reimbursement of Legal Costs and Insolvency Resolution Process Costs:
The Applicant also sought reimbursement of legal costs amounting to ?20,02,445 and ?1,79,675 towards initial payment made to the RP. The Tribunal ordered that the costs paid by the OC to the RP shall be reimbursed upon the production of receipts showing payments made to the RP/IRP.

3. Request for Specific Reasons and Documents Related to the CIRP:
The Applicant requested specific reasons and documents related to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Tribunal did not find merit in this request, as the Applicant had already been directed to submit relevant invoices and failed to do so. The Tribunal emphasized that the order dated 18.09.2018 had attained finality, and the Applicant's failure to comply with the order precluded further consideration of this request.

4. Request to Correct the Resolution Plan for Compliance with IBC:
The Applicant sought a direction to correct the resolution plan to ensure compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and related regulations. The Tribunal found no merit in this request, as the Applicant did not produce the required invoices as directed. The Tribunal noted that the resolution plan had already been approved and was under implementation, making it impossible to revisit the issue.

5. Request to Impose Costs on Respondents for Alleged Violations and Contempt:
The Applicant requested the imposition of heavy costs on the respondents for allegedly harming the CIRP, creating a mockery of the IBC, and committing gross violations of law and contempt of the NCLT. The Tribunal dismissed this request, reiterating that the Applicant failed to comply with the order to submit specific invoices, and no further directions could be given based on the Applicant's misconceived claims.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's claims for payment and corrections to the resolution plan due to the failure to submit the required invoices. The request for reimbursement of legal costs was granted upon the production of receipts. The Tribunal found no merit in the requests for specific reasons and documents related to the CIRP or for imposing costs on the respondents. The order dated 18.09.2018 was upheld as final, and the resolution plan's approval and implementation were not revisited.