9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Pass necessary orders directing the Resolution Professional to admit claims of the applicant to the tune of Rs. 29,72,08,531 (Rupees Twenty-Nine Crores Seventy-Two Lakhs Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-One); B. And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper. " 3. Prayer in CA (IB) No. 176/CTB/2019 are as follows: - "A. Reject the Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors; B. Alternatively, direct modification of the Resolution Plan for approval in accordance with law; C. And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper. " The applicant in CA (IB) No. 162/CTB/2019 submits as follows: - 4. This application is filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules by Government of India through Office of the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Balasore Division, Bhubaneswar GST Commissionerate. 5. The applicant submits that claim application was submitted to the Resolution Professional vide C. No. V (04) 04/ARC/NCLT-FACOR/CGST/BLS/2019/2540 dated 17.09.2019 of Rs. 348.57 crores. The Resolution Professional acknowledged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation is filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules by Government of India through Office of the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Balasore Division, Bhubaneswar GST Commissionerate for rejection of the Resolution Plan. The applicant submits that they are aggrieved due to NIL allocation made in the Resolution Plan by the successful Resolution Applicant which was approved by the Committee of Creditors under Section 30(2) (e) of the Code. The applicant submits that Committee of Creditors have failed to discharge its responsibility in the interest of the applicant who is an Operational Creditor having huge statutory dues. The facts stated under this application are similar to the facts stated in CA (IB) No. 162/CTB/2019. The applicant submits that under Section 25(2) of the Code, it mandates that the Resolution Professional to maintain an updated list of claims under Regulation 13. Resolution Professional shall verify each claim as on the insolvency commencement date and thereupon prepare a Information Memorandum under Section 29(1) of the Code. The Resolution Professional shall prepare an information memorandum c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Government revenue is also jeopardized. The applicant further submits that unless the claims are updated and made available in Information Memorandum before the potential Resolution Applicants, the proposed Resolution Plan is likely to contain incorrect and inadequate statement as to how it would deal with the interest of all stakeholders including, and the amount to be paid to the secured Financial Creditors, unsecured Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors. The applicant submits that how much to be paid to the Operational Creditors are not in compliance with Section 30(1) (b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Such Resolution Plan ought to be rejected. Regulation 38 provides for "Mandatory contents of the Resolution Plan", which are as follows: - "(1) The amount due to the Operational Creditors under a Resolution Plan shall be given priority in payment over Financial Creditors. (1A) A Resolution Plan shall include a statement as to how it has dealt with the interests of all stakeholders, including Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors of the Corporate Debtor. " 10. The applicant further submits that, principle of maximisation of the value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept under review. An additional claim was submitted by the applicant on 17th October, 2019 to the tune of Rs. 4.97 crores. Details of all the proceeding were informed to the applicant by E-mail and applicant also acknowledged the E-mail and submitted all the clarifications sought for. In the 29th CoC Meeting, the representative of the applicant clarified the treatment of the applicant's claim under various categories. By E-mail dated 12th November, 2019, the applicants were informed that the amount of Rs. 220.57 has been admitted and Rs. 133.04 crore has been rejected. The applicant in the present application has challenged the rejection of their claim to the extent of Rs. 29.72 crores. The respondent submits that 29.72 crores claimed under this application relates to the demand of interests, post insolvency commencement date up to date of filing the claim and there are cases where the Department has gone in appeal against an Order passed in favour of the Corporate Debtor. 12. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process commenced on 07th July, 2017. Advertisement was placed in the Newspaper dated 08th July, 2017. The claim ought to be have been submitted within 07 days, under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. Hence, the allegations from the applicant that there was delay in admission of the claim is not acceptable. The cases where claims are not presented within 14 days from the commencement date, as per the pre-amendment Regulation, such claim could be taken up to the date of approval of the Plan by the CoC. As per the amended Regulation, up to 90 days of insolvency commencement date. The 90 days of the insolvency commencement date in this case of Corporate Debtor expired on 04th October, 2017. However, the present Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process began prior to the amended Regulation which came into force on 3rd July, 2018. The Resolution Professional enjoys the pre-amended Regulation. Hence, accepted the claim filed by the applicant beyond 90 days period. Hence, there is no delay on the part of the Resolution Professional in accepting the claim/rejecting the claim. Hence, we conclude that there is no delay in admission of the claim by the respondent. The amount claimed by the applicant relate to the interest period after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Hence, this claim is REJECTED. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Essar Steel Judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Creditors has been taken care of If the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a Resolution Plan back to the Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors while approving a Resolution Plan may thus be looked at by the Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features, it must then pass the Resolution Plan, other things being equal. " 15. All the allegations referred by the applicant have been considered and all the documents have been gone through. However, there is no merit in the statement of the applicant. There is no violation or contravention of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Regulation. The respondent has categorically stated that the claim which has been rejected is that of the interest from the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process till the submission of the claim, in other words it was during the moratorium period. In both the applications and in the written subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
