9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here that the provisions of the IBC, 2016 mandate 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, the 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 - As against the rejection of the claim, section 42 of the I and B Code, 2016 provides for a time window of 14 days upon receipt of such decision to the creditor to file an appeal to the Adjudicating Authority against the said decision of the liquidator. It may be noted that 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 liquida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, before numbering the application and posting the same for hearing before this Tribunal. It is a fundamental law of limitation that each and every day delay is required to be explained by the applicant while filing an application of present nature. Without mentioning the number of days of delay, the applicant seeks for condonation, which we find it quite bizarre. Keeping in mind the said defects as pointed out herein, we will proceed giving our findings in relation to the facts of the case. 4. The applicant, viz., Mr. T. V. Krishnan, is an authorized representative for a total of seven applicants. A total of 8 claims, including the claim of the applicant were filed before the liquidator which came to be rejected on the ground of delay and also on merits by the liquidator. All the eight claimants including the applicant are family members who have authorized the applicant to file the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a senior citizen who got retired from the services of BHEL in the year 2012 and has invested a sum to the tune of ₹ 73,48,500 by way of a fixed deposit in the corporate debtor company, viz., Veesons E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebtor, however all his efforts went in vain and that the applicant met the liquidator in the month of January, 2019 and the liquidator has also not guided him to submit his claim. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is completely unaware of the proceedings and was trying to contact the managing director of the company who was his only acquaintance and hope, however it was submitted that due to the pandemic of Covid-19 there was a delay in filing the claim before the liquidator. It is seen that the applicant has filed the claim before the liquidator on September 7, 2020 which came to be rejected by the liquidator on the ground that it was submitted with a delay and also the debts have not been reflected in the books of account maintained by the corporate debtor. Hence, the applicant has filed the present application seeking to condone the delay in filing the claim before the liquidator and also to direct the liquidator to accept the claim of the applicant. 9. The liquidator has filed counter and learned counsel for the liquidator submitted that the applicant has preferred the claim after an inordinate delay of 873 days and the liquidator could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny fixed deposits. Further, it was also submitted that neither the books of account of the corporate debtor nor the audited financial statements reflect the entries for the payment of interest as claimed by the applicant in their application. Under such circumstances, the liquidator prayed for the dismissal of the present application. 12. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. It is a fact borne on record that the applicant has failed to submit the claim during the corporate insolvency resolution process and that it is averred in the application that the applicant came to know about the liquidation process of the corporate debtor only when the public announcement was made on March 22, 2018. The public announcement is being made only for the sake of the stakeholders to submit the claim before the liquidator and the applicant as per the averments made in the application, being aware of the fact that the public announcement has been made has failed to submit the claim before the liquidator. Hence, the applicant came to know about the order of liquidation passed against the corporate debtor as early as on March 22, 2018 and thus cannot take a plea that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the liquidator and also held that liquidation process is a time bound process and the liquidator has to conclude his proceedings within one year. 16. It may be noted that 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 the liquidator is being made accountable and required to explain, if there is any delay caused in the liquidation process. 17. Further, the hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. [2019] 8 Comp Cas-OL 250 (SC) in Civil Appeal No. 4952 of 2019, in relation to the aspect of limitation has restated the well established and well-settled principle that there is no equity about limitation , we are unable to entertain this application. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
