9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Authority was not challenged by anybody and especially Respondent No. 2 and that the Order has attained finality. Undisputedly, when the claim was made before the Resolution Professional, at that point of time the Assignment Deed dated 18th May, 2020 was not yet registered and the Resolution Professional mentioned this in his letter dated 11th June, 2020 as one of the reasons why he was not acting upon the same. At the time of arguments, we had asked specifically asked the Counsel for Appellant if the Appellant again made a claim before the Resolution Professional after registering the document on 18th May, 2020 - We do not find fault with the Adjudicating Authority for the observations that when the claim was made before the Resolution Professional the document being unregistered, the Resolution Professional rightly ignored the same. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 809 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2021 - [Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial) And [Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Ms. Bhavya Sethi, Mr. Aman Garg, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. T.V.L. Narsimha Rao, in person. Ms. Ak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by Respondent No. 2 for ₹ 10 Lakhs. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to document at Page 92 (Annexure A-2) and submitted that the Appellant was registered as NBFC in January, 2003. It is argued that the document was filed by the Appellant with the Written-Arguments submitted but still the Adjudicating Authority wrongly observed that the Appellant was a non-financial institution and non-ARC. 5. According to the Appellant, the Appellant is not holding any shares in the Corporate Debtor and thus it is not a related party under Section 5 sub-Section 24 of IBC since the assignor (Respondent No. 2) did not assign the shares held by the assignor in the Corporate Debtor. According to the Learned Counsel after the Respondent No. 2 was held to be related party in I.A. No. 677 of 2019 by Order dated 20.11.2019 (Page 221), the assignor did not transfer the shares to the Appellant but only the debt and thus the Appellant could not have been debarred holding that the Appellant has stepped into the shoes of Respondent No. 2. 6. It is claimed that the Appellant has a valid legally enforceable debt assigned by Respondent No. 2 and should have been included as Financial C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction but it is his duty to see whether the assignment document on face of it is in Order. That, only a Letter-head receipt was shown and so he could not accept assignment. 10. At the time of arguments, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 accepted that Respondent No. 2 has not filed Statement of Account from Bank to show receipt of consideration as recorded in Assignment Deed. 11. The Learned Resolution Professional argued that the Respondent No. 2 and Appellant are in collusion as they have filed documents from confidential meetings of 6th and 7th CoC meeting which were filed in I.A. No. 486 of 2020 before NCLT although both of them were never members of the CoC. The I.A No. 677 of 2019 filed by Respondent No. 2 was dismissed on 20.11.2019 (Page 221) holding it to be related party and no Appeal against the order was passed and thus the order became final. The Resolution Professional submitted that on 28.02.2020 the Appellant which has been incorporated on 28th February, 1995 opened a new zero balance current account in the same Bank where Respondent No. 2 has current account. Subsequently on 18th May, 2020, Respondent No. 2 and Appellant entered into Assignment A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then Insolvency Resolution Professional had treated Respondent No. 2 as Financial Creditor (related party) . 14. When Respondent No. 2 was treated as Financial Creditor (related party) Respondent No. 2 had challenged the decision of Insolvency Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority vide I.A. No. 677 of 2019. There is order dated 20.11.2019 (Page 221 of the Appeal Paper Book) which shows that for reasons recorded in that order, especially in paragraph 10 benefit of 2nd Proviso to Section 21(2) of IBC was not given and the claim of the Respondent No. 2 that it was not a related party, was rejected. In paragraph 11 of the Order the acceptance of Part claim of Respondent No. 2 was not disturbed and for balance liberty was given to approach Resolution Professional. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that such Order of the Adjudicating Authority was not challenged by anybody and especially Respondent No. 2 and that the Order has attained finality. 15. The further fact is also not in dispute that Respondent No. 2 executed an Assignment Deed copy of which is at Page 93 (Annexure A3) assigning debt to the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed before the Resolution Professional. The unregistered documents cannot be taken into account for admission of the claim. The document must have been registered on the date on which the claim is made. No doubt for registration, four months are available under Section 23 of the Registration Act. The question is whether Assignment Agreement was registered on the date on which claim was made before the Resolution Professional. The documents must have been registered by the date the claim was made before the Resolution Professional. So when claim was made, the documents was not registered. Therefore, the document cannot be looked into. The Resolution Professional had not committed any error by not relying on the unregistered Assignment Agreement because it was not registered and claim could not be admitted. 19. Undisputedly, when the claim was made before the Resolution Professional, at that point of time the Assignment Deed dated 18th May, 2020 was not yet registered and the Resolution Professional mentioned this in his letter dated 11th June, 2020 as one of the reasons why he was not acting upon the same. At the time of arguments, we had asked specifically asked the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Assignment Agreement. 22. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to make attempt to show defect in the Order dated 20.11.2019 passed in I.A. No. 677 of 2019 vide which the Respondent No. 2 was held as related party. We are unable to go into those particulars as the said order was not challenged and has become final. This being so, even if the Respondent No. 2 kept back the shares and assigned the receivables, the position would remain that, in the facts of the matter, Appellant must be treated to have stepped into the shoes of Respondent No. 2. If Appellant and Respondent No. 2 can place evidence with regard to the passing of consideration before the Resolution Professional, the Resolution Professional may treat the Appellant as having stepped into the shoes of Respondent No. 2 as Financial Creditor Related Party to the extent of claim admitted/non-admitted pending reconciliation, as was done by Interim Resolution Professional. The Resolution Professional has stated that the stage of CIRP is that three Resolution Plans are pending for decision to be taken by CoC. For reasons recorded above, we decline to interfere with the Impugned Order. The Appeal is dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
