2022 (3) TMI 115 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor - Resolution Applicants are already before the CoC with their Resolution Plan - converting and considering the applicant/GNIDA as Operational Creditor and not informing for participating in a meeting of committee of Creditors - HELD THAT - The issue whether the Applicant can be considered as a Financial Creditor instead of Operational Creditor, in case when the Resolution Plan provides for the claim in proportion to other Financial Creditors, does not arise at this stage as the claim of the Applicant has already been considered by the Resolution Applicant viz., M/s. Statcon Electronics India Limited (Resolution Applicant), in addition to this, the Resolution Applicant issued a letter dated 05.02.2021, through which the Resolution Applicant gave an undertaking affidavit to pay the Applicant as per the proportionate ratio given to other financial creditors' in the Resolution Plan. The said letter further stated that such payments had been taken under contingencies fund therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the Applicant in case the claim is admitted as either Operational Creditor or Financial Debt, as the amounts that would be paid to it under the Resolution Plan will be as per the proportion ratio given to other Financial Creditors. Application dismissed.

Issues:
1. Determination of the applicant's status as a financial or operational creditor.
2. Allegations of misconduct against the Resolution Professional.
3. Rights of the applicant as the owner and lessor of the land in question.
4. Submission and consideration of the applicant's claim in the insolvency resolution process.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Determination of the applicant's status as a financial or operational creditor:
The applicant, a statutory authority under the U.P Industrial Area Development Act, claimed to be a financial creditor due to owning the land leased to the Corporate Debtor. The applicant argued that it had a higher charge and preference over other creditors, emphasizing that the lease deed established its financial creditor status. However, the Resolution Professional considered the applicant as an operational creditor, leading to disputes regarding the nature of the debt and the applicant's entitlement in the insolvency resolution process.

Issue 2: Allegations of misconduct against the Resolution Professional:
The applicant accused the Resolution Professional of misconduct for not informing them about participation in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) meetings and allegedly converting their status without proper adjudication. The applicant sought the replacement of the Resolution Professional and actions against them for causing financial loss to the applicant and benefiting the Corporate Debtor unlawfully. These allegations raised concerns about procedural fairness and compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue 3: Rights of the applicant as the owner and lessor of the land:
The applicant contended that as the owner and lessor of the land, they retained rights over the property, including a first charge on the plot leased to the Corporate Debtor. The applicant highlighted breaches of the lease terms by the Corporate Debtor and emphasized their entitlement to cancel the lease and re-enter possession in case of non-payment. The Lease Deed and related clauses were pivotal in establishing the applicant's rights and security interest in the leased property.

Issue 4: Submission and consideration of the applicant's claim in the insolvency resolution process:
The Resolution Professional challenged the timing of the applicant's claim submission, citing regulations specifying deadlines for claim submission. The respondent argued that the belated submission of the claim could jeopardize the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Additionally, the Resolution Professional referenced precedents and regulatory provisions to support their decision regarding the applicant's creditor status and the impact of delayed claims on the resolution process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application, considering the Resolution Applicant's acknowledgment of the applicant's claim and the assurance of proportional payment in the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal found the application infructuous and disposed of it, emphasizing the Resolution Applicant's commitment to treating the applicant's claim in line with other financial creditors, regardless of the specific creditor classification.

← Previous Next →