9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short "IBC") against Impugned Order dated 04.06.2021 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (the Adjudicating Authority) in I.A. No. 727/2021 & I.A. No. 525/2021, both filed under Section 60(5) of the IBC in CP (IB)-496(ND)/2019. 3. The factual matrix of the case as stated and argued by the Appellant is that the Appellant, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA in short), is a statutory authority which demised land plot No. GH-01 sector adjoining Tech Zone - IV, Greater NOIDA on certain terms and conditions to the Corporate Debtor M/s. Maple Realcon Private Limited for the purpose of development of sports city through a lease deed. An application und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for Appellant has argued that the Appellant is a statutory authority and it could not submit its claim as a financial creditor in the stipulated time period to the resolution professional as it was not aware of the ongoing CIRP process against the Corporate Debtor. He has further argued that the Appellant submitted its claim as financial creditor to the RP on 6.2.2020, by which date the Learned Adjudicating Authority had not approved the Resolution Plan (which was done vide order dated 20.2.2020) hence his claim should have been considered while approving the resolution plan. 7. The Appellant has prayed for setting aside of the common impugned order dated 4.6.2021 given in IA No. 727 of 2021 and IA No. 525 of 2021 or remand the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Authority. Even if we assume that the Appellant came to know of the ongoing CIRP on 1.11.2019, there was an inordinate delay in filing of claim after almost three months of this knowledge, and much after the stipulated time period for filing claims. Furthermore, when the claim was filed after much delay on 6.2.2020, the COC had already approved the proposed resolution plan on 8.11.2019 and the RP had submitted it for Adjudicating Authority"s approval. The Adjudicating Authority approved the resolution plan on 20.2.2020. The claim of the Appellant that he came to know of the Impugned Order for the first time from a letter dated 20.12.2020 sent by the Successful Resolution Applicant Apex Height Private Limited, with which the Resolution A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, 2021SCC Online SC 253] 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." Hon"ble Supreme Court has upheld this principle again in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd [2021 SCC Online SC 313]. 14. The relevant portion from the Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel judgment (supra) is reproduced below: "67. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment in holding that claims that may exist apart from tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
