9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout a proper tax invoice, there was nothing that prevented him from factoring in the basic rent in respect of the materials which are already technically under the corporate debtor's custody but physically lying within the Metro Railway Project site. The sheer anchor of the defence raised by the answering respondent is that once a Resolution Plan is approved all undecided claims are extinguished - the applicant has diligently pursued his claim for acceptance and collation by the RP and if it could not be taken up by this Adjudicating Authority before the approval of the resolution plan it cannot be said that the RP extinguishes all such claims. While those invoices which do not contain a signature cannot be accepted in so far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val of the Resolution Plan. 2. Mr. Akhilesh Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel for application IA No. 497/KB/2020 submits as follows:- 2.1. On 24.04.2019, the applicant filed its claim with the RP for a sum of ₹ 1,81,00,496/-. Pages 18 to 73 of the Application The RP vide his email dated 15.05.2019, Page 74 of the Application requested evidence showing that - (i) the corporate debtor has accepted the goods supplied by the applicant, (ii) the ledger statement (iii) details of the cost of material, and (iv) interest calculation sheet. The applicant supplied all the information vide email dated 31.05.2019. Page 76 of the Application 2.2. Thereafter, the RP, vide email dated 28.06.2019, Page 76 of the Application requested for furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be reduced by any authority, much less the Resolution Plan. 2.7. The present application has been filed on 03.02.2020 requesting direction on the RP to consider the claim of the Applicant. 3. Reply by Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the answering respondent:- 3.1. The answering respondent has filed his reply dated 13.01.2021 to the application, wherein he has stated that the reply is being filed in the capacity of Chairman of the Monitoring Committee since the RP is no longer in office following the approval of the Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority. 3.2. Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the RP has accepted the claim of the Applicant to the tune of ₹ 3,26,538/- ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Authority vide order dated 24.02.2020, Page 14 of the Reply therefore, the present application needs to be rejected as infructuous. Any acceptance at this stage will be completely prejudicial to the other stakeholders. Para 6 at page 4 of the Reply 4. Analysis and findings 4.1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and learned senior Counsel appearing for the answering respondent and perused the documents. 4.2. The issue of maintainability of the present applications was taken up as a preliminary issue and orders were reserved thereon on 16.03.2021. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.05.2021 this Adjudicating Authority held that the present application was maintainable. That order has since attained final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t certain materials which were given on hire by the claimant for being used for the Metro work are still in the possession of Metro Railway and arbitration proceedings between Metro Railway and the corporate debtor represented by the RP are going on. The main contract itself was terminated by the Metro Railway on 26.02.2018. The RP had examined the documents attached with the claimant in Form 'B' and concluded that only 3 (three) invoices for June, July and August 2017, are complete in all respect with signatures. In the case of other dues, either a proforma invoice or tax invoice had not been authenticated by the claimant. Therefore, all of these invoices were ignored. 4.7. In response to the query posed by the court as to why t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived from the principal employer i.e. Metro Railway. While there may be a good ground to argue that Proforma Invoice cannot be a substitute for a proper tax invoice, the RP ought to have factored in at least the basic rent and collated the claim on that basis with a rider that tax component can only be factored in once the proper tax invoice has been raised. This has not been done in the present case. 4.10. The sheer anchor of the defence raised by the answering respondent is that once a Resolution Plan is approved all undecided claims are extinguished. As we have already held in our order dated 09.06.2021, an act of Court cannot prejudice a litigant who has diligently pursued his claim with the RP and upon its resolution promptly filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
