2021 (10) TMI 225 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking directions for the Respondent to accept the entire claim filed by the Applicant - partial rejection of claim dated as an Operational Creditor by the Resolution Professional - HELD THAT - As per the Section 53(1) (c) of IBC 2016, the claims/ unpaid dues owed to employees other than workmen are distributed to the extent of wages and any unpaid dues owed to employees other than workmen for the period of twelve months preceding the liquidation commencement date , therefore it is clear from Section 53, that the Applicant is not entitled to be paid any amount if any due on account of salary to the Suspended Managing Director prior to the period of twelve months. The R.P. has admitted the claim of ₹ 7,20,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only), on the ground that it relates before the CIRP commencement date. RP has not committed any illegality or irregularity in not accepting the entire claim of ₹ 63,22,971.00 of the Applicant. The CIRP is in advanced stage. It is made clear that no one should make any attempt to delay the process of CIRP by filing irrelevant IAs. If further IAs are filed without any substance to delay the CIRP, the same may be dismissed with penalty/cost - RP is hereby directed to complete the CIRP in time and find out a Viable Resolution Plan for the MSME CD without further loss of time. Application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Partial rejection of the Applicant's claim as an Operational Creditor.
2. Verification and acceptance of claims by the Resolution Professional (RP).
3. Duties and limitations of the Resolution Professional.
4. Admissibility of claims based on Board Resolutions and audited financial statements.
5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
6. Timeliness and procedural compliance in filing claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Partial Rejection of the Applicant's Claim as an Operational Creditor:
The Applicant, an Operational Creditor, filed a claim of ?63,22,971.00 for unpaid salary from 2009 to 2021. The RP accepted only ?7,20,000.00, leading to the Applicant's grievance. The Applicant argued that the claim was substantiated by Board Meeting minutes, which documented salary increments over the years.

2. Verification and Acceptance of Claims by the Resolution Professional (RP):
The RP's role involves verifying claims based on available records. The RP partially accepted the claim, citing discrepancies between the claimed amount and the audited financial statements of the Corporate Debtor (CD). The RP found that the claimed amount was neither accounted for in the CD's books nor reflected in the audited financial statements.

3. Duties and Limitations of the Resolution Professional:
The RP's duties, as outlined in Sections 18 and 25 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, include collecting information, verifying claims, and preserving the CD's assets. The RP does not have adjudicatory powers but must collate and verify claims. The Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India emphasized that the RP's role is administrative, not quasi-judicial.

4. Admissibility of Claims Based on Board Resolutions and Audited Financial Statements:
The Applicant's claim was primarily based on Board Resolutions, which the RP found insufficient without corresponding entries in the CD's financial records. The Tribunal noted that the balance sheet, a sacrosanct document, did not reflect the claimed salary amounts except for ?7,20,000.00. The Tribunal upheld the RP's decision, stating that claims must be substantiated by credible evidence.

5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from the insolvency resolution process. The Applicant's claim fell within this purview, allowing the Tribunal to hear and decide on the matter.

6. Timeliness and Procedural Compliance in Filing Claims:
The RP highlighted that the Applicant's claim was submitted after the cut-off date and was repeatedly modified. The Tribunal noted that claims must be filed within the stipulated period and supported by adequate documentation. The RP's adherence to procedural requirements was deemed appropriate.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's claim for the entire amount of ?63,22,971.00, upholding the RP's decision to accept only ?7,20,000.00. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with credible evidence and maintaining procedural compliance. The RP was directed to complete the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) without further delays, and frivolous applications were cautioned against.

← Previous Next →