9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter referred to as the "IBC") challenging the decision of the Liquidator dated 07.01.2022 rejecting the claim of the Appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding this Appeal are: (i) The Appellant Company is engaged in the business of executing EPC contracts for its clients. In the course of its business, the Appellant awarded contracts to Tecpro Systems Limited for execution of certain works as a sub-contractor in the year 2010-2011. (ii) In the year 2017, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") was initiated against the Tecpro Systems Limited - the Corporate Debtor on an Application filed by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (iii) A demand notice dated 13.03.2017 was issued to the Bajaj Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. (now Anand Engineering Limited - the Appellant) raising a demand of Rs.13,68,28,348. The demand notice received was replied by Bajaj Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. pointing out the arbitration clause under the Contract and liability to pay the amount was denied. It was pleaded that an excess payment of Rs.12,20,72,608/- has already been made. On 05.08.2017, notice of arbitration was issued by Bajaj Infrastructur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, challenging the communication dated 07.01.2022, which Company Appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.02.2022. Aggrieved by which order, this Appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard Shri Debal Kumar Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Anurag Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that Adjudicating Authority committed error in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant. The claim submitted by the Appellant ought to have been directed to be considered by the Liquidator. It is submitted that the Appellant have intimated about his claim to the IRP and no response was received from the IRP. The Appellant missed the publication by the Liquidator, but Liquidator himself was in correspondence with the Appellant and was asking details of the claim of the Appellant and when the Appellant has submitted its claim in response to the communication received from the Corporate Debtor, the same could not have been rejected as barred by time. The present is a case where for a period of two years the entire country was affected by Covid-19 pandemic an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aj Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd., the predecessor of the Appellant as follows: "A perusal of the above correspondence would go to show and demonstrate that, in fact, it is BIDCO which is seeking and claiming a sum of Rs.12,20,72,608/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Twenty Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred Eight only) from TECPRO. In pursuance to above, BIDCO has also sought to initiate the Arbitration proceedings, since TECPRO has been disputing the claim of BIDCO. Since, your good self is now the Interim Resolution Professional duly appointed; we take this opportunity to request you to guide us, so that we may obtain our claims from TECPRO. In the aforesaid matter, by the said communication we came to know about the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional only on 04.09.2017. However the date of publication and date of submission of any claims by us as creditor is not known to us. Accordingly we are submitting our claim through this reply along with all annexures. We would also request you to kindly, if possible, send me your telephone no, so that we can speak to you in regards to our rightful claims. Thanking you in anticipation. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is really surprising, we are being informed now that you had paid excess payment and we strongly object your attitude and it is not the good practice of a reputed concern after getting the job done by the contractor. We are still open for amicable settlement against our 13.00 Cr outstanding payment and kindly inform us the suitable date for a meeting at your convenient date and time to enable us to attend accordingly. Also we are working on the delayed payment from Bajaj and the interest cost incurred by us. We are enclosing herewith the statement of account of all the orders executed for you and the outstanding amount of each order for your ready reference. Meanwhile, we request you to kindly share all the details of payments, Statement of Account of Tecpro and the work done on behalf of Tecpro if any, to enable us to scrutinize the work so executed by others / Bajaj. We once again request you to kindly look into the long pending issue and release our due payments without further delay along with the additional price implications submitted due to changes in the scope of work." 9. At this juncture, we may notice that the letter dated 30.08.2021 is clearly referrable to powe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has informed about its claim to the IRP as early as on 06.09.2017 and the Liquidator himself sent letter dated 15.06.2021 asking the Appellant to make payment to the Corporate Debtor. The claim of the Appellant was forwarded to the Liquidator vide letter dated 21.07.2021 and 02.08.2021. Thereafter, the Liquidator wrote to the Appellant proposing settlement of old outstanding amount. The claim, thus, raised by the Appellant was under active consideration of the Liquidator and the view subsequently taken by the Liquidator on 07.01.2022 that claim was not filed within the time period is unsustainable. It is true that Appellant did not file its claim before the Liquidator in pursuance of public announcement made on 23.01.2020, but when the Liquidator subsequently entered into correspondence with the Appellant and was confronted with the claim of the Appellant, instead of examining the claim of the Appellant, a short cut was taken by the Liquidator by not considering the claim of the Appellant on the ground that it is not filed within the time line, is not sustainable. The Liquidator was pursuing the claim of the Corporate Debtor against the Appellant, in response to which as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
