9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 569 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyFiling of new claim after Resolution Plan is approved - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the Appellants have filed their claim belatedly. In paragraph 21 of the Appeal, the Appellants themselves have pleaded that they could know about the CIRP and approval of the Plan in May 2022 and could file the claim only on 09.06.2022. No claim having been filed till the approval of the Resolution Plan, no relief can be granted to the Appellants in the present Appeal. The impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority has already been upheld. It is pleaded on behalf of the RP that the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor has abandoned the project and no records were available and whatever records could be collected from the Flat Buyers, on that basis the Information Memorandum was prepared. The Plan having already been approved by the Adjudicating Authority, no new claim can be admitted. The dismissal of the Appeal shall not preclude the Appellants to approach the Successful Resolution Applicant and to give details of payments given to the Corporate Debtor and it is for the Successful Resolution Applicant to take a call on the said claim. Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
The appeal against the order approving the Resolution Plan filed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi. The main issue is whether the appellants, who were allotted a unit by the Corporate Debtor but failed to file their claim in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in time, can now seek relief. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Late filing of claim by the Appellants The Appellants claimed they were unaware of the CIRP and the approval of the Plan until May 2022, thus filing their claim belatedly in June 2022. They argued that the Resolution Professional should have reflected the amount they paid in the Information Memorandum, as per the Tribunal's judgment in Puneet Kaur Vs. K V Developers Pvt. Ltd. Issue 2: Extinction of claims The RP and Successful Resolution Applicant contended that all claims not part of the approved Resolution Plan are extinguished, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. They argued that since the Appellants filed their claim after the approval of the Plan, no relief should be granted. Judgment: The Tribunal noted that the Appellants filed their claim after the approval of the Resolution Plan, and thus, no relief could be granted to them. The Adjudicating Authority's order approving the Plan was upheld. The Tribunal suggested that the Appellants could approach the Successful Resolution Applicant to present their claim details for consideration. Two Intervention Applications were also rejected. The Appeal was dismissed with no costs, granting the Appellants liberty to take further action. This summary highlights the key issues of the judgment, including the late filing of the claim by the Appellants and the extinction of claims not part of the approved Resolution Plan. The Tribunal's decision not to grant relief to the Appellants due to the late filing of the claim and the suggestion for them to approach the Successful Resolution Applicant for consideration are key aspects of the judgment.
|
