9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CLT Rules, 2016 and has prayed following reliefs is hereunder: " a) Allow the instant application of the Applicant; b) Issue necessary instructions to the RP to consider the claim without having any regard to the delay; c) Pass an order to admit the claim of the Applicant before RP; and d) In the meanwhile, direct the RP not to proceed with the adoption of Resolution Plan (not been approved till today and the approval of which would render the present application infructuous), without the admission of the instant claim of the applicant as the claim was duly presented before the RP at an appropriate stage which warranted admission as per the settled law. e) Pass any other order this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case." 2. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority rejected the Application filed by the Appellant (herein) - 'Operational Creditor' with holding as follows: " 16. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that, in view of Regulation 12(2), the prayer of the applicant is not liable to be accepted. Hence, we, hereby, unable to give any direction to the RP to consider the claim of the applicant. Accordingly, the praye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .01.2020 and also vide email on 24.12.2020. vii) The Resolution Professional vide email dated 31.12.2020 replied to the application of the Appellant simply with a remark "Your claim documents is not received with in time as per IBC, 2016". It was further mentioned in the reply that the Form G for EOI has issued and the Resolution Plan is under process. viii) The Appellant followed up with a reply email on 03.01.2021 thereby requesting the Resolution Professional for admission of the claim, along with citations and rulings passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT Principal Bench, wherein the amended Regulation 12(2) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 had been held to be directory and not mandatory and that the claim of the Appellant ought to have been admitted in view of the settled law as the CIRP was still in progress and no Resolution Plan had been approved / finalized till date. ix) Further case of the Appellant is that the time response was received from an Advocate Manoj Kumar Garg on behalf of RP vide email dated 05.01.2021. while again rejecting the claim, the reason was cited as under: " Your claim can not be accepted as it was fille ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent during the course of argument and his Reply Affidavit submitted that as per the own version of the Appellant that on 12.02.2020 was the last day for submission of claim. 9. It is further submitted that the paragraph 7 (E) of the Appeal Paper Book the Appellant himself has admitted that the Appellant missed this publication and was totally unaware of the same. 10. It is further submitted that the Appellant though contacted one of the Directors of the 'Corporate Debtor' - Mr. Gaurav Mahendru for payment of the due and outstanding amount owed by the 'Corporate Debtor' to the Appellant but was surreptitiously kept in the dark by the said Director. The Said Director, however, left for Australia sometime in March 2020. 11. It is further submitted that in paragraph 7 (H) of the Appeal Paper Book the Appellant himself has admitted that the about the CIRP in general and then decided to submit its claim to the RP for the due and legit outstanding amount of Rs. 43,45,844/0 owed to it by the 'Corporate Debtor' in the prescribed format - 'Form-B' along with Affidavit and proof of claim - i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll these facts have been mentioned in the analogous Appeal i.e. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 444 of 2021 (Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Resolution Professional, KPG International Pvt. Ltd. V/s Committee of Creditors, KPG International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) which was heard along with this Appeal. 19. It is further submitted that the Appellant taking recourse of the different orders of the NCLT which have been passed in the facts of the case holding that the period of 90 days as per above Regulation is directory and not mandatory, and the Appellant filed the I.A. No. 143 of 2021 before the Adjudicating Authority taking ground of Covid -19 Pandemic Lockdown. 20. It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has considered all the aspects of the matter and rejected the I.A. No. 143 of 2021. So, there is no merit in the Appeal and the Appeal is fit to be dismissed. FINDING 21. We have perused the records of the case, considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and also Reply Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent. The following facts are admitted. That on 27.01.2020 (IB) No. 2083/ND/2019 was admitted in respect of M/s KPG International Pvt. Ltd. - (Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
