9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1091 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyPrayer for condonation of delay of 1197 days and admission of the claim - seeking admission of claims of appellant - HELD THAT - The claims were filed by the Appellant in Form-CA after more than 1 and a half year of the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. Even orders on Application for approval of Resolution Plan was reserved on 22.02.2023 and the claims were filed only on 29.03.2023. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar Anr. 2023 (9) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT . In Mukul Kumar s case, the claim was filed with a delay of 287 days, which was based on arbitral award. The Appeal filed by the RP was allowed and it was held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in directing the RP to consider the claim of Respondent, which was filed with a delay of 287 days, where the CoC has already approved the Resolution Plan. In the present case, the claims were filed by the Appellant on 29.03.2023, when the Resolution Plan was already approved by the CoC on 13.08.2021. The Application for approval of Resolution Plan was also heard and order was reserved on 22.02.2023 as stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. In the facts of the present case, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting Applications filed by the Appellants. It is also relevant to notice that Adjudicating Authority by order dated 23.06.2023 has already approved the Resolution Plan, which Plan approval order has been challenged by the Appellants by means of Company Appeal, which Appeals are still pending for consideration. Thus, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority - appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
The case involves appeals against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I, where the appellants sought condonation of delay and admission of claims in relation to money advanced to a company that later underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay and Admission of Claims (Company Appeal No. 192 of 2024): The appellant advanced money to a company, and after the company took over another entity's liabilities, the appellant's loan was adjusted through a registered agreement. Despite being unaware of the CIRP against the company, the appellants filed their claim after the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application citing the approval of the Resolution Plan and previous judgments. Issue 2 - Similar Claim (Company Appeal No. 193 of 2024): In a similar scenario, another appellant advanced money to the same company, and their claim was also rejected by the Adjudicating Authority based on the approval of the Resolution Plan and existing legal precedents. Summary of Judgment: The Adjudicating Authority dismissed both applications for condonation of delay and admission of claims, citing the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC and relevant legal precedents. The appellants argued that the company, as the debtor, should honor the agreements made, but the Resolution Professional contended that the claims were untimely and lacked merit. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments emphasizing the time-bound nature of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and the importance of not allowing new claims after the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the claims were filed after a significant delay following the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal highlighted the need to adhere to the timelines set by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing that allowing late claims could jeopardize the resolution process. The appellants' reliance on certain judgments was deemed misplaced as their claims were not reflected in the debtor's records. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's decision and dismissed both appeals, with no costs awarded.
|
