9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s prescribed under Regulation 14 of the Regulations, 2016. Whether such decision of revising a claim can be challenged before NCLT? - HELD THAT:- The answer of this question is that considering the various provisions of the Insolvency Code to be read with Regulations, the NCLT has inherent power to supervise the decision of IRP/ Resolution Professional. Although Resolution Professional is authorised to determine an amount of Claim by making certain adjustments but the correctness of the adjustments can be examined by NCLT. In view of this interpretation it is hereby held that the NCLT has inherent power to go into the details of the claim made and thereafter examine the correctness of adjustment, if any, made by the Resolution Professional and finally pronounce its decision - Under the present circumstances it was implied that the delay in payment shall bear the Interest burden. It was logically argued that in the absence of any express condition agreed upon between the parties that no Interest would be charged even if payment is defaulted, the claim along with Interest is legally permissible. Disallowance of Inventory Cost - HELD THAT:- Prima facie this Bench is not conv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Contracts in the right earnest with effect from 12-06-2009 with a view to timely completion of the Project and keeping in view the interest of the Project the Applicant continued to dispatch of the equipment and materials to the Project site as required under the Contracts and also rendered various services as per the terms and conditions of the Contracts. MPCL has accepted such equipment, materials without any demur or dispute. The Applicant BHEL had agreed to supply and install the said Boiler Turbine Generator Package at the Power Plant. The Debtor MPCL was required to open L/C on a quarterly basis. The payments were to be made directly by MPCL to BHEL. The allegation is that right from the inception MPCL had not opened the requisite L/C Account. The Applicant BHEL had raised requisite Invoices towards such supplies and services. When the payment was not received, the Applicant had no other option but to serve a Legal Notice dated 07.08.2013 to MPCL. Vide a Letter of 26.09.2013 the Applicant had requested MPCL to release payment of ₹100 Crores as promised by MPCL (Letter dated 16.09.2013). On 28.09.2013 payment of ₹50 Crores was released through RTGS to the Applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of revival of Project to be calculated on date of revival. 92,61,311/- Total 977,49,97,545/- 3. However, as per the minutes of the Meeting of the Committee of Creditors the entire claim was not admitted. The Resolution Professional has communicated vide a Letter of 11.04.2018 that only following claim is admissible:- Claim Summary Sl. No. Descriptions Amount in Crs. Remarks 1 Claim No 1- Outstanding Dues 290.95 ₹ 205 Crs. As per MOM 15th Sept 2015 and further ₹ 85.95 Crs additional invoices. Consolidated list of 290.95 Crs attached 2 Claim No 2 Compensation Claim 34.50 Plus GST as applicable (MOM historical) 3 Claim No 3 Prolongation Charges from 01.12.2015 to 22.02.2018 34.28 Plus GST as applicable (MOM future) Total: 359.73 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted initially. As on date, advance of ₹ 214 Crs already stands adjusted, therefore, balance unadjusted advance is only ₹ 49 Crs, whereas BHEL s reconciled outstanding is ₹ 205 Crs. . According to the arguments, the lodgement of claim is very exorbitant. Hence the Resolution Professional had admitted only that portion which was admissible as per the Settlement between the parties. 6. Heard both the sides at some length and perused the contents of the Application filed by BHEL as well as the reply filed by the Resolution Professional in the light of the evidence on record. At the outset it is worth to mention that as per Regulation 7 of IBBI Regulations, 2016 in respect of Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons a claim can be made by an Operational Creditor. However, under Regulation 14 it is prescribed Determination of Amount of Claim according to which where the amount claimed by a Creditor is not precise due to any contingency, the IRP or the Resolution Professional shall make the best estimate of the amount of the Claim based on the information available. The IRP/ Resolution Professional can revise the amount of claim admitted as soon a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
