9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for hearing before the application for approval of the Resolution Plan came up on 04.02.2020. It cannot now be contended that the Adjudicating Authority denuded of jurisdiction to deal with the present application only because the Resolution Plan has been approved - the answering Respondent's objections on the maintainability of the applications on the sole ground that such applications cannot survive after the Resolution Plan has been approved, is hereby overruled. The applications be listed for arguments on merits on 09.06.2021, since the Resolution Plan is currently being implemented and any delay will defeat the ends of justice. - IA Nos. 1840/KB/2019 and 497/KB/2020 in CP (IB) No. 148/KB/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2021 - Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was approved by this Adjudicating Authority; before going into the merits of the matter. 2.2. Hence, both applications were reserved for orders on maintainability vide order dated 16.03.2021. 3. The case of the Applicant in IA No. 1840/KB/2019 3.1. The Applicant's case in IA No. 1840/KB/2019 is as follows:- (a) The Applicant and the corporate debtor entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 03.02.2014 for completing construction of pumping stations in Begore Khal and Joka Tram Depot and construction of sewerage and drainage network within Diamond Harbour Road Catchment. In terms thereof, the corporate debtor was to complete the entire civil work, while the applicant was required to complete the entire electro-mec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Application (b) Thereafter, the RP, vide email dated 28.06.2019, Page 76 of the Application the RP requested for further documents and information to substantiate the claim, such as-(i) GSTR-1 to validate GST input given to the corporate debtor; (ii) cost of material supplied has been claimed for which there is no specific clause in the agreement; (iii) agreement validity was only till 31.12.2017. The applicant replied vide email dated 02.07.2019, Page 91 of the Application submitting all clarifications. (c) Thereafter, there was no communication from the RP without conveying either acceptance or rejection of the claim of the Applicant. The RP, however, uploaded the list of operational creditors (other than workmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the claim of ₹ 1,81,00,496. Para 2 at page 3 of the Reply He further states that the Resolution Plan of the corporate debtor has been approved by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 24.02.2020. Page 14 of the Reply The reply was being filed in the capacity as Chairman of the Monitoring Committee. (b) The RP has submitted that the present application needs to be rejected as infructuous since the Resolution Plan has already been approved. Any acceptance at this stage will be completely prejudicial to the other stakeholders. Para 6 at page 4 of the Reply 7. Analysis 7.1. Mr. Deep Roy, learned counsel appearing for the answering Respondent in both the applications has laid much store by the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2019. 7.5. In IA No. 497/KB/2020, the Applicants have diligently pursued his claim with the RP. The RP has not fully factored in the clarifications submitted by the Applicant on the queries raised, and proceeded to include a very miniscule part of the claim. Irrespective of the language employed by the applicant in the email dated 02.07.2019, Page 92 of the Application in IA No. 497/KB/2020 the RP failed in his duty to communicate the rejection of the claim to the Applicant. There is no communication from the RP to the Applicant rejecting the claim. It is no defence to argue that the list of creditors was uploaded on the website of the corporate debtor, and therefore, there is constructive notice to the world at large. Be that as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erstwhile RP, now the chairman of the Monitoring Committee, should not be allowed to take advantage of judicial vacillation in not deciding one application while deciding the other. 7.8. In the facts and circumstances of the applications, it cannot now be contended that the Adjudicating Authority denuded of jurisdiction to deal with the present application only because the Resolution Plan has been approved. 7.9. In this view of the matter, the answering Respondent's objections on the maintainability of the applications on the sole ground that such applications cannot survive after the Resolution Plan has been approved, is hereby overruled. We hold that the present applications are maintainable and are required to be answered on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
