9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was an abnormal delay in filing the claim before the liquidator. The applicant has not furnished any justifiable reasons for the delay. The amount claimed by the Applicant is substantial. It is not convincing to believe that a person who is to get substantial amounts is not keeping a track of the happenings in the corporate debtor. Application dismissed. - IA No. 88 of 2021 in C.P (IB) No.329/7/HDB/2017 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2021 - Shri Bhaskara Pantula Mohan, Member (Judicial) and Shri Veera Brahma Rao Arekapudi, Member (Technical) Counsel for Applicant: Shri Dishit Bhattacharjee. Liquidator/ Respondent: Shri Hemant Sharma. Counsel for Liquidator: Shri Naresh Kumar Sangam. ORDER This Application is filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant are time barred as Regulation 16 and 30 of IBC, 2016 provides that the person claiming to be stakeholder has to file its claim on or before the last date mentioned in the public announcement or within 30 days from the date of commencement of the liquidation process. Copy of the impugned order dated 13.12.2020 is annexed here with as Annexure A-5. e. It is averred by the Applicant that the liquidator failed to consider that Section 38 (1) provides for receiving or collecting the claims of the creditors within a period of thirty days from the date of commencement of liquidation however there is no express bar that the claims can't be received after the said stipulated date. Section 39 that the liquidator shall verify the claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here in Tribunal held the delay in submission of claims deserves condonation and that no prejudice will be caused if the claim of the Applicant is adjudicated and admitted as the liquidation proceedings are yet to be finalized . i. Hence, the Applicant urged this Tribunal to favorably consider the plea of the Applicant to condone the delay of 540 days in filing the claim and sought directions to Liquidator to accept its claim and consider it on merits in the interest of justice. 3. Reply on behalf of the liquidator: a. It is averred that the appeal filed by the Applicant under Section 42 of the I B Code, 2016 is legally untenable and is liable to be dismissed. The Applicant has not placed the material facts of the case i.e The Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim. d. It is submitted that on perusal of Section 38(1) of IBC, it is comprehensible that the Liquidator has to mandatory receive or collect the claims of Creditor with a period of 30 days from the date of the commencement of the liquidation process. Further, it is submitted that on going through Regulation 12 (2) of CIRP Regulations, a claim can be considered by the Resolution Professional even after expiry of last date fixed in public announcement i.e. till approval of the Resolution Plan. However, in the present case wherein the Liquidation proceedings have been initiated, there is no similar provision under IBC or in regulation enabling the Liquidator in receiving a claim after the last date fixed in the public announcement. Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebted to pay an amount of ₹ 1,69,77,139/-. The case of Applicant that the delay in filing the Form C is neither intentional nor deliberate. 7. The contention of the Counsel for liquidator is that the Applicant filed the claim beyond the time prescribed for receiving the claims. It is true that the Applicant filed the claim after a delay of 540 days. The claim was not filed within 30 days from the commencement of liquidation process. 8. The undisputed fact is that there was an abnormal delay in filing the claim before the liquidator. The applicant has not furnished any justifiable reasons for the delay. The amount claimed by the Applicant is substantial. It is not convincing to believe that a person who is to get substantial amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
