9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 729 - AT - IBCApproval of resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor - resolution plan did not incorporate the claims of the Appellant - whether the Appellant had shown due diligence in submitting their claim before the IRP/RP and, if not, whether sufficient reasons/grounds exist to admit the belated claim at a time when resolution plan has already been approved by the Adjudicating Authority? - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is noticed that after the Corporate Debtor was admitted into the rigours of CIRP on 28.01.2022, the Interim Resolution Professional made a Public Announcement on 04.02.2022, in compliance with Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC read with Regulation 6 of CIRP Regulations. The Public Announcement had set 16.02.2022 as the deadline for claim submissions. On 10.02.2022, the RP also informed the Appellant of the CIRP initiation against the Corporate Debtor, a fact which has not been controverted by the Appellant - the Appellant cannot deny that he was unaware that the CIRP process had already commenced and that it was incumbent upon the Appellant to make due endeavours on their part to submit their claims. The RP had also not committed any error in making the Public Announcement in the newspapers. Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations only mandates pronouncement through newspapers and not through personal service and therefore the RP was not obligated to inform the Appellant through personal service. The RP in accordance with the CIRP Regulations had regularly uploaded from time to time the list of creditors of the Corporate Debtor both prior to submission of claim by the Appellant and even after the submission of claim. The status of their claims of the creditors was also put up on the websites of Corporate Debtor as well as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) portal on several occasions. From the material on record, it is clear that the list of creditors was uploaded five times on 23.02.2022, 14.04.2022, 06.05.2022, 20.06.2022 and 04.08.2022. On 23.02.2022, the first updated list of creditors was published, indicating the status of claims received on the Corporate Debtor's website and the IBBI portal - The Appellant cannot shift the burden of their own negligence of not checking the website to ascertain the status of their claim. Hence there is no force in the contention of Appellant that they became aware that their claim was rejected only when the impugned order was emailed by the RP. Whether the RP ever agitated the issue of rejection of their claims? - HELD THAT - It is clear that even until 180 days of CIRP completion, no objections were raised by the Appellant regarding rejection of their claims. The same position continued even when the resolution plan came up for approval before the Adjudicating Authority. When the RP moved IA No. 899 of 2022 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking approval of the resolution plan, the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 09.11.2022 directed issue of notice upon the Appellant. Whether sufficient reasons/grounds exist to admit the belated claim at this stage? - whether such undecided claims can be entertained once the resolution plan is approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority? - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the facts on record do not show that the RP had acted in contravention of the IBC in rejecting or stalling the filing of belated claims or that he did not show due diligence in performing his duty. Hence the objections of the Appellant to the approval of the resolution plan approval merely on the ground that their claims were rejected lacks merit. It is also found that the Respondents have contended that the Appellant can claim the status of a Secured Creditor only if the relevant statutory provision provides basis for such a claim - the claim of the Appellant of being a secured creditor lacks force. The Appeal is devoid of merit - The Appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellant showed due diligence in submitting their claim before the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)/Resolution Professional (RP). 2. Whether sufficient reasons exist to admit the belated claim after the resolution plan has been approved. 3. Whether the RP adhered to the provisions of IBC and CIRP Regulations while receiving, collating, and verifying claims. 4. Whether the RP misrepresented before the Adjudicating Authority regarding the status of the Appellant as a secured creditor. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Due Diligence in Submitting Claims: The Appellant, representing the Income Tax Department, filed its claim on 13.05.2022, which was beyond the extended 90-day period for claim submission as per CIRP Regulations. The RP had informed the Appellant of the CIRP initiation on 10.02.2022, and a public announcement was made on 04.02.2022, setting 16.02.2022 as the deadline for claim submissions. The Appellant did not file its claim within this period or the extended 90-day timeline, demonstrating a lack of diligence. The tribunal noted that the Appellant failed to provide reasons justifying the delay, and the RP was not obliged to accept claims beyond the extended period. 2. Admittance of Belated Claims: The tribunal emphasized that once a resolution plan is approved, new claims cannot be entertained, as it would disrupt the resolution process and prejudice stakeholders. The Appellant's claim was not part of the resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority, and allowing such claims would contravene the intent of the IBC to maintain a time-bound process. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, which held that claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished. 3. Adherence to IBC and CIRP Regulations: The RP adhered to the statutory provisions by making a public announcement and updating the list of creditors regularly. The RP sought additional information from the Appellant to substantiate its claim, as permitted under Regulation 10 of the CIRP Regulations. The tribunal found that the RP acted within his rights and did not err in rejecting the claim due to the lack of supporting documents. The Appellant's contention that it was unaware of the rejection was dismissed, as the RP had uploaded the list of creditors indicating the rejection multiple times. 4. Misrepresentation Regarding Secured Creditor Status: The Appellant argued that it was a secured creditor based on the Rainbow Papers Limited judgment. However, the tribunal noted that the Appellant filed its claim in Form-B, meant for operational creditors, and indicated "NIL" for security details. The tribunal referred to the subsequent judgment in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., which confined the Rainbow Papers ratio to its facts. The tribunal concluded that the Income Tax Act does not provide a basis for the Appellant to be treated as a secured creditor, and the claim of being a secured creditor lacked merit. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the Appellant's contentions. It upheld the resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the need for a time-bound CIRP process and the finality of claims as outlined in the resolution plan.
|
