9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 28.11.2019 approving the Resolution Plan. Appellant having not taken any steps for agitating its claim before the Adjudicating Authority at the relevant time, it is not open for the Appellant to raise any grievance for non-allocation of any amount in the Resolution Plan. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Kalpraj Dharamshi Anr. [ 2021 (3) TMI 496 - SUPREME COURT ] has also noticed one fact that the implementation of the Resolution Plan commenced after approval of the plan. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the Resolution Plan approved was fully implemented and information of the implementation of the Resolution Plan has already been sent to all stakeholders in March, 2021. Thus, no ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. There is no merit in the Appeal - The Appeal is dismissed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson And [ Arun Baroka ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant: Ms. Ritu Guru, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Ghosh, Ms. Akshita Sachde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Resolution Professional for approval of the Resolution Plan was considered by the Adjudicating Authority and by order dated 28.11.2019, the Resolution Plan was approved allowing MA 691 of 2019. Appellant aggrieved by the approval of the Resolution Plan has filed this Appeal. 3. We have heard Ms. Ritu Guru, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Shri Abhinav Vasisht, Learned Senior Counsel for the SRA as well as Counsel for the Resolution Professional. 4. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the claim was submitted by the Appellant in Form F well within time on 08.06.2018. The Resolution Professional did not send any communication to the Appellant regarding non-admission of the claim. Appellant was under impression that the claim which has been submitted shall be duly dealt in the CIRP process. It is submitted that the Appellant is a secured creditor. Adjudicating Authority failed to consider that the claim was submitted by the Appellant within time and Appellant was kept in dark. Appellant came to know that the claim of the Appellant was not admitted only after passing of the order dated 28.11.2019 by the Adjudicating Authority. The order dated 29.11.2019 notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.06.2018 for amount of Rs.510,636,046/-. The Resolution Professional has acknowledged the claim and the claim amount of the Appellant was reflected in the list of creditors which was issued on 24.08.2018. In the reply filed by the Resolution Professional as well as in IA No.764 of 2024 bringing on record additional documents, updated list of creditors has been brought on the record. The Resolution Professional has filed updated list of creditors for Ricoh India Limited as on 24.01.2019- Annexure 4 to the reply which contains the list of all claims under the heading claims pertaining to statutory authorities , the Appellant s claim has been noticed and list further states that the claim has not been admitted. It is useful to extract the list of creditors as uploaded by the Resolution Professional on 24.01.2019, relevant part of which is as follows : - Claims pertaining to Statutory Authorities Ref No. Name of Creditor Claims Submitted Claims Admitted Claims under verification Note SC01 Deputy Comm, Sales Tax, Maharashtra 3,47,33,90,103 - - Note 4 SC02 Commercial Tax Officer, Bhopal 1,22,12,857 - - Note 4 SC03 State Tax Officer, Gandhinagar 51,06,36,046 - - Note 4 3,99,62,39,006 Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing claims or additional information from books of accounts maintained by the company. Key Points to Note 1. CIRP Commencement date is May 14, 2018 2. Claims received from all parties are under further verification. The same may be updated as per additional information received. Amounts admitted has been mentioned above basis available Information. 9. The above indicate that the entire claim was noted and it was mentioned that the claim is under verification. Subsequently, on the list issued on 29.11.2018, it was mentioned that the claim has not been admitted. Following part of the updated list of creditors as on 29.11.2018 is as follows : - Claims pertaining to Statutory Authorities Ref No. Name of Creditor Claims Submitted Claims Admitted Claims under verification Note SC01 Deputy Comm, Sales Tax, Maharashtra 3,47,33,90,103 - - Note 3 SC02 Commercial Tax Officer, Bhopal 1,22,12,857 - - Note 3 SC03 State Tax Officer, Gandhinagar 51,06,36,046 - - Note 3 3,99,62,39,006 Note- 1. The amount admitted is subject to change subsequently as we receive further claims and based on additional information made available to us in respect of existing claims or additional information from books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation before the Adjudicating Authority challenging non-admission of the claim. Resolution Professional has published four updated list of creditors, as noted above where the claim of Appellant was reflected and in the list, it was stated that the claim was not admitted. Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations provides for verification of the claims. Regulation 13(2) provides as follows:- 13. Verification of claims. (2) The list of creditors shall be (a) available for inspection by the persons who submitted proofs of claim; (b) available for inspection by members, partners, directors and guarantors of the corporate debtor [or their authorised representatives]; (c) displayed on the website, if any, of the corporate debtor; [(ca) filed on the electronic platform of the Board for dissemination on its website: Provided that this clause shall apply to every corporate insolvency resolution process ongoing and commencing on or after the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2020;] (d) filed with the Adjudicating Authority; and (e) presented at the first meeting of the committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan dated 28.11.2019. It is useful to extract paragraph 157 and 159 of the judgment which is as follows:- 157. It is further to be noted, that after the resolution plan of Kalpraj was approved by NCLT on 28.11.2019, Kalpraj had begun implementing the resolution plan. NCLAT had heard the appeals on 27.2.2020 and reserved the same for orders. It is not in dispute, that there was no stay granted by NCLAT, while reserving the matters for orders. After a gap of five months and eight days, NCLAT passed the final order on 5.8.2020. It could thus be seen, that for a long period, there was no restraint on implementation of the resolution plan of Kalpraj, which was duly approved by NCLT. It is the case of Kalpraj. RP, CoC and Deutsche Bank, that during the said period, various steps have been taken by Kalpraj by spending a huge amount for implementation of the plan. No doubt, this is sought to be disputed by KIAL. However, we do not find it necessary to go into that aspect of the matter in light of our conclusion, that NCLAT acted in excess of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
