9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 858 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of the Resolution Plan - Acceptability of claim of debts which remain unverified during CIRP - Section 31 of I B Code - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the information sought for by the RP vide email dated 16.04.2019 was provided by the Appellants vide email dated 12.07.2019, after a clear gap of three months. There are no substantial reasons given for this delay of three months specially keeping in view that IBC mandates a time bound process. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant represented the Ex-Directors of the Corporate Debtor in their personal capacity and therefore the Resolution Professional sought for information from the Appellant herein to ascertain the liability of the Corporate Debtor against the claims preferred by the Appellant. Admittedly, the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor was passed by a majority of 87.57% Voting by the CoC Members way back on 17.10.2019 and this Application was preferred by the Appellants in September, 2019, which was listed on 22.10.2019 and disposed of vide Order dated 17.03.2021. In the absence of any cogent reasons for having delayed supplying the information to the RP who had sought for clarification on 16.04.2019, but the Appellant had admittedly provided the information only on 12.07.2019 after 90 days after the receipt of the email. This Tribunal is of the earnest view that the Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be asked to face with undecided claims after the Resolution Plan submitted by him has been accepted by the Committee of Creditors as this would amount to lot of uncertainty - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to Impugned Order dated 17.03.2021 by Learned Adjudicating Authority regarding the dismissal of Application IA 372/2019 in CP (IB) No.- 1059/ND/2018. Analysis: 1. The Appeal challenged the Impugned Order dated 17.03.2021 where the Adjudicating Authority dismissed Application IA 372/2019. The Resolution Professional (RP) denied having received all necessary information from the Applicant, leading to the inability to verify the claim. The RP emphasized the importance of due verification before admitting claims, citing the need for complete information. The RP also highlighted the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors before the Applicant's application, indicating that no new claims can be entertained post-approval, as per Supreme Court's decision. 2. The Appellant claimed to have provided legal services to the Corporate Debtor based on a Retainer Agreement. However, the RP requested further details to verify the claim, which the Appellant allegedly delayed in providing. The Appellant sought direction from the Adjudicating Authority to compel the RP to accept the claim. The Appellant relied on Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, arguing that the claim could be admitted even after the Resolution Plan's approval by the Committee of Creditors. 3. The Respondent/RP contended that the delay in providing necessary information by the Appellant hindered the verification process. The RP sought clarification on the liability of the Corporate Debtor concerning the claims made by the Appellant. The RP also referenced a Supreme Court judgment to support the argument that post-approval of a Resolution Plan, new claims cannot be entertained to avoid uncertainty for the Resolution Applicant. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the delay in providing information by the Appellant, noting the lack of substantial reasons for the delay despite the time-bound process mandated by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal found that the Appellant's representation of the Ex-Directors of the Corporate Debtor raised concerns regarding the liability assessment. With the Resolution Plan already approved by the Committee of Creditors, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to dismiss the Appeal based on the delay in providing necessary information. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's Order and dismissed the Appeal, emphasizing that a Successful Resolution Applicant cannot face undecided claims post-approval of the Resolution Plan to maintain certainty in the resolution process.
|
