2024 (10) TMI 683 - AT - IBC

Seeking declaration to the effect that claim of the Appellant being in the nature of Stamp Duty and cannot be ignored by the Resolution Professional - applicant authorities have filed their claim at the belated stage - Appellant submitted that without paying the statutory claims, the company does not get a clear and marketable title of the properties in question - HELD THAT - It is noted from the pleadings of the Appellant that he was informed for the first time by the Respondent on 17.02.2021 whereas which was much delayed after the public announcement on 03.09.2020. One query was raised by this Appellate Tribunal to the Appellant that even for argument s sake the Appellant came to know only on 17.02.2021 why did the Appellant file the claim only on 23.03.2023 i.e., after more than 2 years and not immediately after 17.02.2021, the Appellant could not response properly on this pointed query. Thus, it is noted that there was no plausible reason for the Appellant to explain his conduct of filing such belated claims after 30 months of the public notice. It is noted that the Appellant stated that his claims are to be treated at par with land revenue dues and the CIRP proceeding was initiated only in 2018. For this query of this Appellate Tribunal, no specific answer could be furnished by the Appellant to elaborate action taken by the Appellant in realising its dues even prior to initiation of the CIRP. We have already noted in previous paragraphs that even the claims were filed by the Appellant after 30 months of the CIRP. The issue of the stamp duty was indeed provided in the Resolution Plan in the ambit of the Code and the same was considered by the CoC exercising their commercial wisdom and finally the Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority by vide Impugned order dated 12.10.2023 and it is seen that the total claims which was filed were of Rs. 1695.85 Crores and the claim of Rs. 1672.08 Crores were admitted - Thereafter the Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan of M/s Steel Strips Wheels Limited who propose to infuse Rs. 138.15 Crores. Obviously, the intended hair cut is being taken by all the Stakeholders including the Secured Financial Creditors, Operational Creditor and the Government dues. Therefore, the Appellant s challenge on account of non-payment of full dues is not convincing. It is the fact that the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC much earlier then the claim submitted by the Appellant. The Resolution Plan is stated to have been implemented by the SRA. There are no merit in the appeal. The appeal deserved to be dismissed and stand dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the claim of the Appellant for stamp duty and penalty should be considered in the resolution plan despite being filed belatedly.
2. Whether the Appellant's claim is covered under the definition of 'secured creditor' and 'security interest' as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
3. Applicability of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on the Appellant's claim.
4. Validity of the Appellant's claim in light of the approved resolution plan and the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Belated Claims of the Appellant:
The Appellant, a statutory body, filed claims of Rs. 15,38,79,179/- for stamp duty and penalty, but only Rs. 2,65,00,000/- was provided in the resolution plan. The Appellant argued that the claim was based on a Gujarat High Court order from 2012 related to a demerger. The Respondent contended that the Appellant filed the claim 30 months after the public announcement and 18 months after the resolution plan's approval by the CoC. The tribunal noted the importance of timely claims in the resolution process and found no plausible reason for the Appellant's delay, leading to the dismissal of this issue.

2. Claim as Secured Creditor and Security Interest:
The Appellant argued that their claims fall within the terms of secured creditors as per Sections 3(30) and 3(31) of the Code, citing the Supreme Court decision in State Tax Officer Vs. Rainbow Papers Limited. However, the tribunal observed that the claim was considered in the resolution plan approved by the CoC, and the Appellant's reliance on the definition of 'secured creditor' was not relevant as the claims were addressed within the resolution plan.

3. Applicability of Section 14 of the Code:
The Appellant contended that Section 14 imposing a moratorium does not apply as the demerger stamp duty claim was approved in 2012. The tribunal referred to Section 14, which prohibits proceedings against the corporate debtor post-CIRP initiation, and found the Appellant's argument unsustainable. The claim was considered during the resolution plan's formation, aligning with the Code's provisions.

4. Validity of the Appellant's Claim in Light of the Approved Resolution Plan:
The tribunal noted that the resolution plan, approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority, addressed the stamp duty claims under the Code's framework. The tribunal emphasized the commercial wisdom of the CoC and the binding nature of the approved resolution plan, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Essar Steel and Ghanshyam Mishra cases. The tribunal found that the Appellant's late claims could not disrupt the resolution process, and the appeal lacked merit.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for timely claims in the insolvency resolution process and the binding nature of the resolution plan once approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority. No costs were awarded, and any interlocutory applications were closed.

← Previous Next →