9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory requirement under the IBC, 2016 and also it must be noted here that the mere entry of debt in the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor is also not evidential enough for the claims to be admitted and considered by the Liquidator. It must be borne in mind that the IBC treats the CIRP and Liquidation process as two separate stages and the proof of claim is to be filed separately at each stage and hence the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that claims filed during CIRP should be treated as the Claim filed during the Liquidation process would render the CIRP and Liquidation Process as envisaged under the provisions of IBC, 2016 as nugatory. Under Regulation 44(1) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Liquidator is directed to liquidate the Corporate Debtor within one year from the date of commencement of the liquidation proceedings and Regulation 44(2) stipulates that, after the expiry of one year, the liquidator shall file an application to the Authority to continue the liquidation period along with a report and explain why the liquidation has not been completed - Thus, it can be seen that the Liquidation is a time bound process and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed with the IRP, the Applicants have appointed an Authorized Representative vide their letter dated 14.08.2017 and communicated the same to the IRP. Further, it was submitted that inspite of reminders being sent, there was no response from the IRP in relation to the status of the claims filed by the Applicants and under such circumstances, the Applicants filed CA/218/IB/2017 before this Tribunal under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016 and this Tribunal vide order dated 10.01.2018, based on the representation made by the Resolution Professional that he had partially admitted the claim of the Applicants to the tune of ₹ 32,98,12,436/- had disposed off the said application. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor in its 6th Meeting held on 08.12.2017 had passed a Resolution unanimously to liquidate the Corporate Debtor and that this Tribunal vide order dated 11.01.2018 in IA/66/2017 has ordered for the Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and appointed the Respondent herein as the Liquidator. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Applicants are ginners from the State of Maharashtra and Gujarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid reply that the Applicants have not submitted their claims during the Liquidation stage in relation to the Corporate Debtor. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that in reply to the said e-mail, the Applicants have sent an e-mail to the Respondent on 25.11.2019 stating that they are ginners and do not understand the procedural aspect of the matters and requested the Respondent to consider the claims submitted during the CIRP for the Liquidation process as well. However, since the Respondent has failed to carry forward the claim of the Applicants which was submitted during the CIRP Process to the Liquidation process, the Applicants have filed the present Application seeking relief thereof as extracted supra. 7. The Respondent has filed counter and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that pursuant to the Order of Liquidation passed by this Tribunal and based on the public announcement being made by the Liquidator, the Respondent verified the Claims of the Creditors and admitted the Claims to the tune of ₹ 183,19,12,759/- and also submitted the list of stakeholders before this Tribunal. Further, it was submitted that in the interregnum, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dation process of the Corporate Debtor only when the order was passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT on 08.08.2019. However, even after the said order was passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT, the Applicants have not preferred to file any claim before the Liquidator. 13. It is to be noted here that the provisions of IBC, 2016 mandates that the Claimants are required to submit the claim to the Liquidator in such form and in such manner along with such supporting documents as specified by the Board. Thereafter, upon submission of the claim, the Liquidator is required to verify the claims within the time limits specified by the Board and in this connection referring to the relevant Regulations namely, IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and more specifically under Regulation 30, the Liquidator is required to verify the claim submitted within a period of 30 days from the last date of receipt of the claims and may either admit or reject in whole or part as the case may be of such claim. Section 40 of the I B Code, 2016 mandates the Liquidator to record the reason in writing for rejection of the claim and the same is also required to be communicated to the Applicant. In relation to his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the Liquidation process within the time period stipulated thereunder is a mandatory requirement under the IBC, 2016 and also it must be noted here that the mere entry of debt in the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor is also not evidential enough for the claims to be admitted and considered by the Liquidator. 15. It must be borne in mind that the IBC treats the CIRP and Liquidation process as two separate stages and the proof of claim is to be filed separately at each stage and hence the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that claims filed during CIRP should be treated as the Claim filed during the Liquidation process would render the CIRP and Liquidation Process as envisaged under the provisions of IBC, 2016 as nugatory. Further, the plea of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that the claim of the Applicants during the CIRP period should be considered as a claim filed during the Liquidation Process on the basis of equity is also required to be brushed aside in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arun Kumar Jagatramka -Vs- Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 9664 of 2019 wherein the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
