9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi Bench-II) in (IB) 334(ND)/2017 in IA/3927/2020 1356/2021 is hereby affirmed. The instant Appeal is hereby dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 833 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2022 - [Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial) And [Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondent:- Mr. Vishal Ganda, Ms. Siddhi Khambayat, Sreemantini Mukherjee, Advocates JUDGMENT Justice Anant Bijay Singh ; The Appellants have preferred the instant Appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-II) in (IB) 334(ND)/2017 in IA/3927/2020 1356/2021 whereby and whereunder Corporate Debtor filed applications i.e. I.A. No. 3927/2020 with a following prayer which are hereunder and I.A. No. 1345/2021 for seeking consideration of IA 3927/2020. a. Direct the Respondents to refund Rs. 12,30,457/- to the Corporate Debtor with interest @18% p.a. being the amounts illegally retained by them and which amounts were given during moratorium period for supply of goods/components. b. Direct that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondents dated 10.10.2019. The Respondent instead of refunding the Rs. 12,30,457/- rather sought Rs. 34,07,390/- from the Corporate Debtor vide legal notice dated 21.10.2019. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred the I.A. No. 3927 of 2020 in CP No. (IB) 334 (ND) of 2017 before the Tribunal and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned order which led to filing of this Appeal. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument and in his memo of Appeal submitted that while passing the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider that the acts of the Respondents to usurp the money received by the Corporate Debtor, Applied Electro Magnetic Pvt. Ltd. during the period of moratorium imposed by the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Code and the Respondents cannot retain any amounts given to them under trust during the CIRP proceedings during the moratorium period. The Respondents are violating the mandate of law claiming dues from Corporate Debtor when the Appellant Corporate Debtor cannot be made liable to pay any dues for the period prior to imposition of moratorium period when the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r subsection (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 5. It is further submitted that the Tribunal while passing the impugned order failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 531' wherein it has held that: 67. ............. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with undecided claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er submitted that the proceedings were initiated under Section 60(5)(c), which has a very broad scope that it speaks amount any question of law or fact, arising out of or in relation to the corporate insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceeding of a Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction only over ongoing CIRP or liquidation proceeding. In this regard, Section 5(140 of the Code defines the CIRP period as the period of one hundred and eight days beginning from the insolvency commencement date and ending on one hundred and eight days. The period of 180 days of CIRP may be extended to a maximum of 330 days under Section 12 of the Code, which is the maximum period for CIRP or when the Resolution Plan gets approved by the Adjudicating Authority. In the present case the Resolution plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 02.04.2019. As such, the Adjudicating Authority became functus officio on 02.04.2019. Therefore, in this case, at the time of filing of the application bearing IA No. 3927 of 2020 on 14.09.2020, there was on insolvency petition, which was pending before the Adjudicating Authority and as such, the Adjudicating Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
