9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords that it has no objection if the claim of the Appellant is also entertained and the delay in filing the claim is condoned, therefore, it is not required to go into the merits of this case and decide the appeal only on the basis of concession made by the Mr. Ritesh Jain. The present appeal succeeds and the Impugned Order is set aside. The Respondent/ Resolution Professional shall now accordingly include the claim of the Appellant and submit the updated claim to the Adjudicating Authority - Appeal allowed. - [Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) , [Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) And [Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Arsh Bhalla Mr. Kunal Shahi, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Ankur Mittal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Debtor ) before the Adjudicating Authority which was admitted on 09.07.2021 and Sandeep Goel was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (in short IRP ) who was later on confirmed as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. 3. The public announcement was made on 14.07.2021 and the last date for submission of claim was 26.07.2021 which was further extended upto 07.10.2021. 4. The present Appellant who is also a Homebuyer submitted his claim in Form CA for an amount of Rs. 42,39,781/- along with documents to the Respondent vide e-mail dated 19.12.2022. There was a delay of 544 days in submitting his claims. 5. The Respondent rejected the claim of the Appellant vide e-mail dated 20.12.2022 stating that the time period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... member bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Puneet Kaur, through her Attorney Amrit Pal Singh V/s. K V Developers Private Limited passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 390 of 2022 decided on 01.06.2022. 10. It is submitted that the Learned Tribunal has wrongly recorded that the claim has been set up by the Appellant after the plan was approved by the CoC. It is rather submitted that the claim was submitted on 19.12.2022 which was approved by the CoC five days thereafter on 24.12.2022. 11. He has then referred to the facts of the case of M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited (Supra). It is contended that in this case the CIRP was initiated on 27.03.2019, public announcement was made on 30.03.2019 and ultimately the CoC approved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as a party in this appeal, yet one of the partners of the said firm, namely, Mr. Ritesh Jain has appeared during the course of hearing and submitted that he has no objection to consider the claim of the Appellant. 15. We have heard Counsel for the Parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The very fact that effected party in this case has given a concession in so many words that it has no objection if the claim of the Appellant is also entertained and the delay in filing the claim is condoned, therefore, we need not to go into the merits of this case and decide the appeal only on the basis of concession made by the Mr. Ritesh Jain. 16. Hence, the present appeal succeeds and the Impugned Order is set aside. The Respondent/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
