2020 (10) TMI 864 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Approval of Resolution Plan - Section 60(5)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - The corporate debtor invoked the Arbitration Proceedings against the applicant, even before initiation of CIRP and consequently in the books of corporate debtor, no liability towards applicant was shown and RP acted accordingly - In the instant CA the COC has already approved a resolution plan and that the CA filed by the RP seeking approval of this Adjudicating Authority for the said resolution plan is pending. The applicant is allowed to file its claim in terms of the sub-section (6) of Section 60 before the appropriate court of law or may file appropriate application against the corporate debtor if the resolution plan is approved and do not take proper care of the applicant - application disposed off.

Issues: Application under Section 60(5)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against RP's decision to reject claims of the applicant as an operational creditor. Disputes regarding recovery of moneys paid as mobilization advance, outstanding performance bank guarantee, and loss of revenue due to the corporate debtor's breach of obligations under the MOA.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed against the RP's decision to reject the applicant's claims as an operational creditor, related to recovery of moneys paid as mobilization advance and outstanding performance bank guarantee, and loss of revenue due to the corporate debtor's breach of obligations under the MOA.
2. The CIRP proceedings were initiated against the corporate debtor, and the RP rejected the applicant's claim, which was submitted within the permissible time period, stating that the corporate debtor's records did not support the claim.
3. The COC approved a resolution plan, and the RP filed a CA seeking approval from the Adjudicating Authority for the plan, which is pending consideration.
4. The corporate debtor invoked arbitration proceedings against the applicant even before the CIRP initiation, leading to the RP rejecting the applicant's claim based on the corporate debtor's records.
5. Both parties presented arguments extensively, citing various decisions to support their contentions.
6. The applicant contended that the RP's role is to vet, verify, and collate claims, not adjudicate on their admissibility, citing the decision in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.
7. Reference was made to Navneet Kumar Gupta v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, where the Adjudicating Authority directed the RP to re-examine a claim based on evidence, following the principles outlined in Swiss Ribbons.
8. The RP's rejection of the applicant's claim was based on the corporate debtor's invocation of arbitration proceedings before CIRP initiation, aligning with the decision in Navneet Kumar Gupta.
9. The NCLAT's decision in M/s. Prasad Gempex v. Star Agro Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. highlighted that the RP lacks jurisdiction to reject claims, similar to the findings in Swiss Ribbons, emphasizing the RP's role in verifying claims.
10. Considering the approved resolution plan by the COC, the NCLT directed the applicant to file its claim as per Section 60(6) before the appropriate court or against the corporate debtor, depending on the outcome of the resolution plan approval.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and precedents cited in the decision.

← Previous Next →