9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1311 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution plan - submission which have been much pressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is the publication issued by IRP being not in compliance of Section 15 and Regulation 6(1) of 2016 Regulations - HELD THAT - Regulation 6, sub-regulation (2) (b) provides for public announcement be published and in sub-clause (b)(i) the public announcement should be in one English and one regional language newspaper with wide circulation at the location of the registered office and principal office, if any, of the corporate debtor and any other location where in the opinion of the Interim Resolution Professional, the corporate debtor conducts material business operations. The public announcement made in Annexure A-2, itself indicates that Claim Form can be downloaded from the website of the Board also. From the facts and pleadings as noted above, it is clear that the publication was made not only at the registered and corporate office of the Corporate Debtor, but several other places at Kolkata, Guwahati, Shilong and Itanagar etc. In regional newspaper, publication was made at Guwahati, Jorhat and Lakhimpur where registered office and factory premises of the Corporate Debtor was situated. The publication, thus, was not only confined to registered office and corporate office of the Corporate Debtor, but publication was made at other locations also, where in the opinion of IRP, Corporate Debtor conducts material business operations - The statutory requirement cannot be stretched to mean that publication has to be made from all places where the Corporate Debtor is receiving goods and supplies. The mandatory requirement is to publish in one English and one regional newspaper with wide circulation at the location of the registered and corporate office of the Corporate Debtor and any other location, where in the opinion of the IRP the Corporate Debtor conducts material business operations. The IRP has made publication at other places as noted above, which indicates that there is compliance of requirement of Regulation 6, sub-regulation (2)(i). It is further noticed that there was compliance of Regulation 6(2)(ii) and (iii), since the publication was uploaded on the website of the Corporate Debtor as well on the website of the Board. There are no error in the publication made by the IRP under Section 15 read with Regulation 6(1) of 2016 Regulations - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with publication requirements under Section 15 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Regulation 6(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. 2. Appellant's right to challenge the approval of the Resolution Plan. 3. Extinguishment of claims not part of the Resolution Plan. Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Publication Requirements: The central issue raised by the Appellant was the alleged non-compliance with Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6(1) of the 2016 Regulations regarding the publication of the public announcement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellant argued that the publication by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was not made in the State of Maharashtra, where the Appellant conducted its business, thereby vitiating the entire Insolvency Resolution Process. The Tribunal examined Section 15 and Regulation 6(1) of the 2016 Regulations, which mandate that the public announcement should be made in one English and one regional language newspaper with wide circulation at the location of the registered office and principal office of the corporate debtor and any other location where the corporate debtor conducts material business operations. The Tribunal found that the IRP had made the required publications in newspapers circulating in Kolkata, Guwahati, Shillong, and Itanagar, where the corporate debtor had material business operations. Additionally, the announcement was uploaded on the corporate debtor's website and the Board's website. The Tribunal concluded that there was compliance with the statutory requirements, and the IRP was not obliged to make publications in Maharashtra specifically for the Appellant. 2. Appellant's Right to Challenge the Approval of the Resolution Plan: The Tribunal addressed the Appellant's contention that it was unaware of the CIRP due to the lack of publication in Maharashtra and thus could not file its claim timely. The Appellant argued that its claim should have been considered as it had initiated winding-up proceedings against the corporate debtor in 2011. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant did not file any claim before the IRP within the stipulated period. The last date for submission of claims was 18.05.2018, and the Appellant filed its claim 20 months later. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited," which held that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, all claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished. Therefore, the Appellant, having not filed a claim timely, had no locus standi to challenge the approval of the Resolution Plan. 3. Extinguishment of Claims Not Part of the Resolution Plan: The Tribunal reiterated the Supreme Court's ruling in "Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited," emphasizing that all claims not included in the approved Resolution Plan are extinguished. The Tribunal found that the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No.2 was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with the requisite majority and subsequently by the Adjudicating Authority. Since the Appellant's claim was not part of the Resolution Plan, it stood extinguished upon the plan's approval. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the IRP had complied with the publication requirements under Section 15 and Regulation 6(1) of the 2016 Regulations. The Appellant, having failed to file a timely claim, had no right to challenge the approved Resolution Plan. The Tribunal affirmed that all claims not part of the approved Resolution Plan are extinguished, as per the Supreme Court's precedent. Thus, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
|
