9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22, whereas the Appellant had filed the Claim before the RP on 07.08.2022, which is indeed the 139th day of the commencement of the CIRP. The ground taken by the Counsel for the Appellant that it was initially filed under Form B as an Operational Creditor which was rejected vide email communication dated 03.08.2022, and thereafter the Appellant had resubmitted her Claim under Form C on 07.08.2022, does not strengthen or substantiate her case as the timelines given under IBC are to be strictly adhered to and any latches on behalf of the Appellant in filing, the Claim under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning the delay. It is clear that the actual time period of delay in submitting the Claim Form is 125 days. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r referred to as The Code ), against the Impugned Order dated 12.05.2023, in I.A. 1522/2022 in C.P. (IB) No.75/2021, whereby the Tribunal/ Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the said Application filed by the Appellant / Applicant herein seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the Claim under Form C . 2. Facts in brief are that I.A. (IBC)/1522 (CHE)/2022 in C.P. (IB)/75/CHE/2021 was filed by the Applicant / Appellant seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the Claim before the Respondent and for acceptance of the Claim . The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ( CIRP ) of the Corporate Debtor was initiated on 21.03.2022 and the public announcement was made on 23.03.2022, the last date for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , strenuously argued that an amount of Rs.1,33,33,562/ was lent to the Corporate Debtor ; that the Appellant had incorrectly filled her Form under Form B as an Operational Creditor on 02.08.2022; that the RP rejected the Claim vide email communication dated 03.08.2022 on the ground of delay and filing the Claim ; upon receiving correct advice. The Appellant was advised to resubmit her Claim under Form C vide email communication dated 07.08.2022; the same was done without any delay and the reminder was also sent on 10.08.2022; that no response was received from the Respondent who had never adjudicated on her Claim and therefore the Appellant filed I.A.1522/2022, seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Bank Vs. Animesh Mukhopadhyay , 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 3259 , in support of his arguments that even belated Claims could be considered by the Tribunal. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant ( SRA ), M/s. CDR Co. Constructions was approved and the approval for the said Resolution Plan is posted for hearing on 01.06.2023 in I.A. (IBC)/1556/CHE/2022. The IA along with the Affidavit seeking Condonation of Delay was signed on 26.11.2022 and the actual days of delay in filing the Claim Petition before the Respondent is 125 days and with a further delay of 100 days, the Appellant approached the Adjudicating Authority understating the delay as 49 days w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the RP on 07.08.2022, which is indeed the 139th day of the commencement of the CIRP. The ground taken by the Counsel for the Appellant that it was initially filed under Form B as an Operational Creditor which was rejected vide email communication dated 03.08.2022, and thereafter the Appellant had resubmitted her Claim under Form C on 07.08.2022, does not strengthen or substantiate her case as the timelines given under IBC are to be strictly adhered to and any latches on behalf of the Appellant in filing, the Claim under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning the delay. Moreover, keeping in view the aforenoted dates, it is clear that the actual time period of delay in submitting the Claim Form is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
