9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. The Respondent / Liquidator fairly addresses these points by stating that the items of claim not admitted by her as due payable are those for which no documents such as invoice / dispatch documents were available in the records of CD and which were not also provided by the Appellant. She has also fairly answered the point by stating that the disallowed claims could be due to non-performance of CD which will require adjudication by a competent Civil Court / Arbitrator, before they can be translated into Dues within the framework of IBC and has cited the relevant law in form of a decision by the Hon ble Apex Court to support her assertion. It is also seen that the Respondent / Liquidator has given sufficient reasons for disallowing the claim of the Appellant in her letter to the Appellant. It is also seen that the AA / NCLT, Hyderabad have dealt on these issues in detail and given succinct reasons as to why they have accepted the submission and reasoning of the Liquidator as to why she has rejected the claim of the Appellant. They have rightly held that when claim and counter claims are involved Liquidator cannot decide the same and therefore the Liquidator rightly rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispatch of the manufactured items under various pretexts. 6. Meanwhile the CD was put under CIRP and the Appellant filed a claim before the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) for a sum of Rs. 71.09 crore by filing Form-B on 21.08.2017. The same was examined by the IRP and he confirmed that a sum of Rs.13.47 crore is payable and asked the Appellant to clarify the difference of Rs. 57.65 crore with sufficient supporting documents to corroborate the same. This being so, the claim was later rejected by RP which was challenged by the Appellant before AA / NCLT, Hyderabad in I.A. No.204/2018. While the said IA was pending, the CD went into liquidation as per orders of AA and the RP was appointed as the liquidator. Pursuant to the public announcement made by the Respondent as the Liquidator, the Appellant herein submitted a claim for sum of Rs. 31.71 crores in Form-C on 26.09.2018. The said claim was rejected by the Respondent vide his email dated 12.12.2018. Challenging the rejection, the Appellant filed an appeal under section 42 of IBC and the same was numbered as I.A. No.56/2019. 7. Both the IAs were heard by AA/ NCLT, Hyderabad and a common order was passed on 15.10.2019 dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant / OC when claims and counter claims are involved and that dispute if any between the CD and the OC has to be settled by the competent Civil Court without assigning any reason, even though power has been conferred on the AA under section 42 of IBC to adjudicate on the same. 11. On the above grounds the Appellant prays the Tribunal to set aside the orders of AA / NCLT, Hyderabad and to order fresh assessment of the claim of the Appellant. Submissions by the Respondent : 12. The Respondent states that the Appellant first filed a claim of Rs. 71.09 crores before RP. The RP verified the claim and determined that in fact an amount of Rs.1.51 crore, is payable by the Appellant and therefore rejected the claim against which, the Appellant has filed IA No. 204/2018. The Respondent states, that there is no contradiction between earlier letter sent acknowledging a due of Rs.13.47 crore and this rejection because the former was based on available materials and the latter was based on verification of all records of CD. 13. The Respondent has stated that the Liquidator has acted in accordance with the Code and IBC (Liquidation process) Regulations, 2016, in form of consolidation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Appellant as the job of RP is not to simply rely on the books of the CD to determine the claims and that, had that been the case the entire exercise of submission and subsequent verification of claims would not be required at all. 15. In her further submissions she has stated that the Corporate Debtor (CD) has been sold as a Going Concern in auction on as is where is basis in form of an Acquisition Plan and the Plan has been approved by AA in its order dated 26.09.2022 in IA561/2022 of CP(IB)No.111/7/HDB/20217. Accordingly, the Board of CD has been reconstituted and she as Liquidator has no powers to entertain any claim received at this point of time. Hence the present appeal is a futile exercise with the aim to set off the receivables against the payables and that is why the appellant has not made the Acquirer, a necessary party. 16. Finally, the Respondent cites the order passed by Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arun Kumar Jagatramka Vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. Anr., in Civil Appeal No. 9664 of 2019 and states that the doctrine of clean slate is applicable to this case, also. Analysis Findings 17. It is the Appellant s case that the CD having awarded the purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
