9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal is preferred by the Appellant Mr. Ashok Kumar Juneja, Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor Mastana Foods Private Limited under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'IBC') against the order dated 06.04.2021 in I.A. No. 1374 of 2021 (hereafter called Impugned Rectification Order) and order dated 16.02.2021 in I.A. No. 95 of 2021 (hereafter called Impugned Original Order), both orders being passed in CP (IB) No. 630(PB)/2019 by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi). 2. The Respondent Excise & Taxation Officer of State Tax has stated in the appeal that the Respondent submitted its claim to the Resolution Professional (in short 'RP') on 26.10.2020, after 405 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Impugned Orders the Appellant/RP has filed the present appeal praying for setting aside both the impugned orders viz. order dated 06.04.2021 in I.A No. 1374(PB)/2021 and order dated 16.02.2021 in I.A. No. 95 of 2021. 4. We heard the arguments advanced by the RP 'in-person' and the Ld. Sr. Counsel/Additional Solicitor General for the Respondent in the matter and also perused the record. 5. The Appellant/RP has made the following prayers in the appeal:- (i) Set aside the impugned Rectification Order dated 06.04.2021 in IA No. 1374/2021 and impugned Original Order dated 16.02.2021 in lA No. 95/2021, both orders being in CP (IB) No. 630(PB) of 2019. (ii) Rejecting the claim of Rs. 9.65 crores submitted by the Respondent on 26.10.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, Government of Maharashtra Versus Shri Parthiv Parikh & Ors. [CA (AT) (Ins) No. 583 of 2020] to point out that a claim filed much beyond the stipulated time period cannot be admitted in case the CIRP has advanced to a point when its admission will upset the timeline of the resolution process as IBC proceedings are to be completed in strict timelines. 7. The Ld. Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent has argued that the claim of the Respondent was submitted to the RP prior to the resolution plan being approved by the CoC and therefore, even though the claim was not submitted in time, it ought to have been considered by the RP since it is a statutory claim. The Ld. ASG also sought to point out the distinction between t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Principal Bench. The Resolution Professional states that in the said order claim of one of the claimants was allowed by condoning the delay in filing the claim and RP was directed to admit the claim on merit. Mr. Juneja, Resolution Professional states that since no notice of this application was given and RP was not given an opportunity to be heard, this order may be rectified and notice of present application be issued and the RP be allowed to submit in IA-95/2021 the order finally deciding application and disposing it cannot be rectified by Adjudicating Authority. In view of the above order application dismissed." 10. RP's claim is that he was not given a notice of application I.A. No. 95 of 2021 and thus not given an opport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration of CoC which was approved in 10th meeting of CoC on 07.11.2020. After approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, the application for approval of the Resolution Plan was filed by the RP before the Adjudicating Authority on 25.11.2020. While the resolution plan was pending for approval, IA No. 95 (PB)/2021 was considered by the Adjudicating Authority and ex-parte` order was passed on 16.02.2021 condoning the delay and for consideration by RP of claim on merits. Subsequently, the RP filed I.A. No. 1374(PB)/2021 on 13.03.2021, after the Resolution Plan had been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. 13. Now we look at the impugned order dated 16.02.2021 in I.A. No. 95 of 2021 by which the delay in submission of the claim by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short-listed and considered the proposed resolution plans and till then no claim had been received from the Respondent. Thereafter, the Resolution Plans were considered and approved in the 10th CoC Meeting on 07.11.2020 and the approved Resolution Plan was submitted for approval of the Adjudicating Authority vide I.A. No. 5283 of 2020 on 25.11.2020. Thus, it is clear that when the claim was first submitted by the Respondent to the RP, the CoC had already opened the proposed Resolution Plans received on 17.10.2020 and had begun considering them on 22.10.2020. Quite obviously the CIRP was at an advanced stage nearing finalization of the Resolution Plan before the claim was submitted to the RP by the Respondent. 15. It is the primary objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
