9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 418 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyRejection of claims - time limitation - delay in filing the same as the extended period of 90 days under Regulation 12(2) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 in the present case had expired on 04.01.2022 - HELD THAT - In the present case, the claims were filed on 07.02.2022/11.02.2022, and subsequently, the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC on 28.02.2022. The operational creditor is a regular business associate of the corporate debtor having the principal amount of claim reflected in the Books of Account of the CD.Despite this back ground, it is apparent that the claims were not put up by the respondent-Resolution Professional with his observations before the CoC before the same was rejected. The issue of attachment of the wrong documents could have been addressed by the respondent-Resolution Professional by simply requisitioning the right documents and does not in itself give an excuse for not considering the claim. Hon ble NCLAT in the matter of SUMAT KUMAR GUPTA, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL, M/S VALLABH TEXTILES COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS M/S VARDHMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED 2022 (7) TMI 1252 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI , wherein the Hon ble NCLAT, inter alia, considered the issue of whether serious efforts were made by the Appellant/Resolution Professional in properly verifying the claim submitted before him by the Financial Creditor including classifying the debts into financial and operational debts. In the present case the claim was received by the respondent-Resolution Professional before the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC in its 5th meeting held on 28.02.2022. Keeping in view of the above observations of the Hon ble NCLAT, we hold that in the present case, an opportunity should have been given to the applicant by the respondent-Resolution Professional to rectify the mistakes in the claim form. The claim should not have been rejected summarily without presenting the complete facts to the CoC - Application allowed. Direction to respondent-Resolution Professional to collate the claim of the applicant and to put the applicant s name in the list maintained for this purpose - direction to respondent-Resolution Professional to give the voting rights to the applicant - HELD THAT - In the present case, the claims were filed on 17.02.2022, and subsequently, the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC on 28.02.2022. The operational creditor is a regular business associate of the corporate debtor having the principal amount of claim reflected in the Books of Account of the Corporate Debtor. Despite this background, it is apparent that the claims were not put up by the respondent-Resolution Professional with his observations before the CoC before the same was rejected - In the present case, the claim was received by the respondent-Resolution Professional before the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC in its 5th meeting held on 28.02.2022. In the present case, an opportunity should have been given to the applicant by the respondent-Resolution Professional to rectify the mistakes in the claim form. The claim should not have been rejected summarily without presenting the complete facts to the CoC. In view of this, the respondent-Resolution Professional is directed to consider the claim of the applicant including its claim for voting rights on merits afresh and present the complete facts with his observations thereto before the CoC, for taking a final decision on the admissibility of the claim. Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness and validity of claims filed by the applicants. 2. Role and responsibilities of the Resolution Professional in handling and verifying claims. 3. Admissibility of claims and the right to rectify mistakes in the claim form. 4. Voting rights of the applicant in the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Timeliness and Validity of Claims Filed by the Applicants: In IA No.157/2022, the applicant, M/s Aggarwal Plasto Chem, filed a claim under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016, and Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The claim was submitted via email on 07.02.2022 and by post on 08.02.2022, which was delivered on 11.02.2022. The respondent-Resolution Professional rejected the claim, citing it was filed beyond the extended period of 90 days under Regulation 12(2) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016, which expired on 04.01.2022. The Tribunal noted that the delay was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a fact recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In IA No.435/2022, the applicant, M/s Ashoka Drugs & Chemicals, filed a claim on 17.02.2022, which was also rejected for being beyond the stipulated time. The applicant argued that the delay was due to unawareness of the CIRP initiation and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal acknowledged that the principal amount was reflected in the Books of Account of the Corporate Debtor. 2. Role and Responsibilities of the Resolution Professional in Handling and Verifying Claims: The Tribunal emphasized that the Resolution Professional (RP) should act as a facilitator of the resolution process, as per Section 18 and Section 25(e) of the IBC. The RP is expected to receive and collate claims and maintain an updated list of claims. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble NCLAT's decision in Sumat Kumar Gupta, RP, M/s Vallabh Textiles Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Vardhman Industries Ltd., which stated that the RP should not summarily reject claims without presenting complete facts before the CoC. 3. Admissibility of Claims and the Right to Rectify Mistakes in the Claim Form: In both IA No.157/2022 and IA No.435/2022, the Tribunal held that the RP should have given the applicants an opportunity to rectify mistakes in their claim forms. The RP's rejection of claims without presenting the complete facts to the CoC was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal directed the RP to consider the claims on merits afresh and present the complete facts with observations before the CoC for a final decision. 4. Voting Rights of the Applicant in the Committee of Creditors (CoC): In IA No.435/2022, the applicant also sought voting rights in the CoC. The Tribunal directed the RP to consider the applicant's claim for voting rights on merits and present the complete facts before the CoC for a final decision. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed both IA No.157/2022 and IA No.435/2022, directing the respondent-Resolution Professional to reconsider the claims on merits, present complete facts before the CoC, and inform the applicants about the fate of their claims within three weeks. The RP was also directed to submit an affidavit on the decision regarding the admissibility of the claims before the Bench for further consideration at the time of approval of the connected resolution plan filed by IA No.340/2022.
|
