9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.01.2019. It is undisputed that the RP had filed the Resolution Plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors to the Adjudicating Authority, much before the said claim was preferred before the RP, and the Adjudicating Authority was actively considering the Resolution Plan for necessary approval. After rejection of claim of Appellant by RP, its appeal was filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 21.02.2020 under Section 60(5) of the IBC. Thus, it is clear that much water had flown under the bridge from the date of issue of public notice (on 02.11.2018) and the extended time period of ninety days as provided under Regulation 12(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and the Resolution Plan as approved by the COC was submitted to the Adjudicating Authority for necessary approval under Section 30. Any interruption in the CIR Process at this stage by including a delayed claim/s would have meant setting the clock back and sending matter back to COC RP. It cannot be ruled out that if the claim of the Operational Creditor State Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra was accepted at such a late ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Professional. 3. The Appellant has claimed that he was unaware of these proceedings and the insolvency proceedings against Respondent No.3 came to his knowledge only when the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax forwarded the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 30.09.2019 to him. In order to secure the interest of the State Tax Department, the Appellant filed a claim in Form B for ₹ 5,62,29,528/- on 20.12.2019. This claim was rejected by the Resolution Professional vide email dated 31.12.2019 on the ground of delay in filing the claim and as the Resolution Plan had been submitted for approval to the Adjudicating Authority after approval by the Committee of Creditors. 4. As the Appellant was not satisfied with the rejection of his claim, he sent an email on 10.02.2020 to erstwhile IRP Premanarayan Tripathi for condoning delay in filing claim and accepting his claim as Operational Creditor. As he was no longer handling the CIRP, the erstwhile IRP forwarded this request to the Resolution Professional for necessary action. The Resolution Professional through an email dated 18.2.2020 rejected the claim. Thereafter, the Appellant filed appeal under Section 60(5) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Resolution Plan even if no formal claim was filed. He cited the order of the NCLT, Delhi Principal Bench dated 05.12.2018 in the case State Bank of India v ARGL Ltd. (CA No. 1220(PB)/2018 in I.A. No. (IB)531(PB)/2017) in support of his arguments. He has also claimed that the Adjudicating Authority made a unilateral change in the proposed Resolution Plan as approved by the COC by directing other financial creditors to contribute amounts on pro rata basis to the Axis Bank. In support he has cited the law as expounded by the Hon ble Apex Court in the two cases viz. Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel v. Satish Kumar Gupta 2019 (16) SCC 319 and K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. 2019 SCCOnLine SC 257. 8. In reply, the Ld. Counsel of the Respondent No. 1 has opposed the acceptance of Appellant s claim at such a late stage pleading that it would completely upset the progress of the CIRP which was nearing completion when the said claim was preferred. According to him the CIRP, as stipulated in IBC, is a time-bound, result-oriented process which should be taken to its logical conclusion. If claims continue to be accepted even after the period specified in the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxxxxx (1) The resolution professional shall prepare an information memorandum in such form and manner containing such relevant information as may be specified by the Board for formulating a resolution plan. (2) The Resolution professional shall provide to the resolution applicant access to all the relevant information in physical and electronic form, provided such resolution applicant undertakes (a) to comply with provisions of law for the time being in force relating to confidentiality and insider trading; (b) to protect any intellectual property of the corporate debtor it may have access to; and (c) not to share relevant information with third parties unless clauses (a) and (b) of this sub-section are complied with. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, relevant information means the information required by the resolution applicant to make the resolution plan for the corporate debtor, which shall include the financial position of the corporate debtor and any other matter of the corporate debtor as may be specified. 12. Regulation 36 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational Creditor - State Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra submitted its claim on 20.12.2019, more than about one year and one month after the invitation of claims through public notice on 2.11.2018. The extended time period for submission of claims with proof is ninety days from the date of initiation of the insolvency resolution process. This period also expired on 31.01.2019. It is undisputed that the RP had filed the Resolution Plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors to the Adjudicating Authority, much before the said claim was preferred before the RP, and the Adjudicating Authority was actively considering the Resolution Plan for necessary approval. After rejection of claim of Appellant by RP, its appeal was filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 21.02.2020 under Section 60(5) of the IBC. 15. Thus, it is clear that much water had flown under the bridge from the date of issue of public notice (on 02.11.2018) and the extended time period of ninety days as provided under Regulation 12(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and the Resolution Plan as approved by the COC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quisite stamp duty as per the Indian Stamp Act despite repeated reminders having been sent by the resolution professional. The application filed by the Appellants before the NCLT came to be dismissed by an order dated 14.02.2019 on the ground of non-prosecution. The subsequent restoration application filed by the appellants then came to be rejected by the NCLT through judgment dated 08.03.2019 on two grounds: one, that the applications could not be entertained at such a belated stage; and two, that notwithstanding the aforementioned reason, the claim had no merit in view of the failure to produce duly stamped agreements. The impugned NCLAT judgment, at paragraphs 93 and 94, upheld the finding of the NCLT and the resolution professional. In view of these concurrent findings, the claim of the Appellants therefore requires no interference. Further, the submission of the Appellants that they have now paid the requisite stamp duty, after the impugned NCLAT judgment, would not assist the case of the Appellants at this belated stage. These appeals are therefore dismissed. The ratio in the K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. is also on the same lines.Quite clearly, the rati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
