9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORS. [ 2021 (3) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT ] that a Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be faced with undecided claims after the Resolution Plan submitted by him has been approved as this would amount to a hydra head popping up, which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective Resolution Applicant who successfully takes over the business of the Corporate Debtor. There is no legal provision that allows it to recall or review its order dated 20.2.2020 approving the resolution plan for the corporate debtor. Moreover, once the Resolution Plan has been approved and implemented, any new/undecided claims cannot be considered as has been held in a number of judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court - Appeal dismissed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (COC) in its meeting on 8.11.2019. Thereafter, after its approval, the Resolution Plan was submitted to the Adjudicating Authority, who granted approval vide order dated 20.02.2020. 4. The Appellant has further stated that it was, for the first time, made aware of the ongoing CIRP of the Corporate Debtor through a letter dated 1.11.2019 from an ex-Director of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant thereafter submitted its claim of ₹ 17,31,22,890 as a financial creditor to the RP on 6.2.2020, which was not considered by the RP and the order approving the Resolution Plan was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 20.02.2020. 5. The Appellant has further stated that since the RP did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Corporate Debtor to the Chief Executive Officer, GNIDA, wherein it was informed that since CIRP is pending against the Corporate Debtor, all pending litigation between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor should be kept in abeyance. 9. It is useful to look at the various dates relevant to this appeal. These are as follows:- (i) CIRP initiated against Corporate Debtor M/s. Maple Realcon Private Limited - 18.07.2018 (ii) Letter written by ex-Director of M/s. Maple Realcon Private Limited to GNIDA to keep in abeyance all on-going litigations since CIRP against the Corporate Debtor M/s. Maple Realcon Private Limited is pending 1.11.2019 (iii) Claim filed by GNIDA to RP 6.02.2020 (iv) Approval of Resolut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard its interest. By being remiss, it has not only missed the opportunity to file its claim, but has also filed its claim and IA Nos. 727/2021 and 525/2021 after much delay, after the lapse of respective limitations. 12. Furthermore, as the Adjudicating has held in the Impugned Order, there is no provision in the IBC for recalling of the order approving the Resolution Plan, the proper course for the Appellant was to file an appeal under IBC if it was aggrieved by the Resolution Plan approval order. This was not done within limitation. Insofar as the Appellant s grievance against the actions/decisions of RP is concerned, again the proper course was to file application within limitation against the specific action/s of the RP. 13. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion applicant cannot suddenly be faced with undecided claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who successfully takes over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. 15. In view of the discussion above, we are in agreement with the Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
