9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 492 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyAmendment of the list of creditors - appropriate determination of the claims - determination of statutory Relinquishment Charges claimed by the Applicant - HELD THAT - This Adjudicating Authority is of the view that the non-admission of said claim by the RP is only on the technical ground of non-filing of its claim in appropriate Form before the RP. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority hereby direct the Applicant to approach RP by filing its revised claim Form before the RP for consideration. However, it is made clear that the RP may consider the claim only after verification of all the relevant documents pertaining to the claim of the Applicant. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-inclusion of Relinquishment Charges in the list of creditors by the Resolution Professional. 2. Compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and related regulations. 3. Admissibility of claims not filed in the prescribed manner. 4. Role and obligations of the Resolution Professional. 5. Legal precedents and their applicability. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-inclusion of Relinquishment Charges in the List of Creditors by the Resolution Professional: The Applicant sought to amend the list of creditors to include Relinquishment Charges. The Corporate Debtor had defaulted on several obligations under the Bulk Power Transmission Agreement (BPTA), leading to the termination of the Transmission Service Agreement (TSA) and revocation of Long Term Transmission Access (LTA). The Applicant communicated the liability for Relinquishment Charges to the Corporate Debtor, which was pending determination by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). Despite this, the Resolution Professional (RP) did not account for these charges in the list of creditors, prompting the Applicant to file the present application. 2. Compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Related Regulations: The Applicant argued that the RP violated Regulation 14(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which mandates the RP to make the best estimate of the claim based on available information. The Applicant had informed the Corporate Debtor about the Relinquishment Charges, which were later quantified by CERC. The RP's failure to include these charges was seen as a disregard for the statutory provisions and the duty imposed on the RP. 3. Admissibility of Claims Not Filed in the Prescribed Manner: The RP countered that the Applicant did not file the claim for Relinquishment Charges in the prescribed manner and within the specified time. The claim was first mentioned in a letter dated November 15, 2019, after the resolution plan was already reserved for orders. The RP argued that under the IBC and CIRP Regulations, no further claims could be accepted after the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The RP also noted that the Applicant had the opportunity to include the Relinquishment Charges in its initial claim but failed to do so. 4. Role and Obligations of the Resolution Professional: The RP admitted the entire claim amount of ?201,25,89,789 as initially filed by the Applicant but did not include the Relinquishment Charges due to the lack of a formal claim form. The RP's role is to collect, verify, and collate claims filed in the prescribed manner. The RP argued that the Applicant's failure to file the claim for Relinquishment Charges in the prescribed form and within the specified period could not be attributed to any lack of diligence on the RP's part. 5. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability: The Applicant cited several legal precedents to support its case, including Venkatsen Sankarnarayanan Vs. Tecpro Systems Limited, Tata Steel BSL Ltd. Vs. Varsha and Ors., and Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. These cases emphasized that the RP does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate claims and that claims not crystallized until the resolution plan date should be considered. The RP, however, argued that these precedents did not apply as the Applicant failed to file the claim in the prescribed manner. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the non-admission of the claim by the RP was based on the technical ground of non-filing of the claim in the appropriate form. The Tribunal directed the Applicant to approach the RP by filing a revised claim form for consideration. The RP was instructed to verify all relevant documents before considering the claim. The application was disposed of with these observations.
|
