9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided by the Regulation 12 of CIRP Regulations. The Appellant had filed their claim on 12.09.2023 which was much beyond the extended period of 90 days. From material on record, it is therefore abundantly clear that a lot of time elapsed since the date of issue of public announcement inviting claim and the actual filing of claim by the Appellant. Despite having filed their claim belatedly, the Appellant has put the blame on the RP for having dealt with the claims and rejected the same within 3 days - There is no material to either believe that the RP acted in a manner hurriedly pushing the plans for consideration of the CoC or having deliberately orchestrated to stall the claim of the Appellant. It is a well settled precept that there is a catena of judgements of the Hon ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that no surprise claims should be flung on the resolution applicant. The logic behind this precept is that all necessary details should find place in the Information Memorandum so that the potential resolution applicants are fully aware of the liabilities that they may have to provide for in their resolution plan towards satisfying whole or part of such liabilities and to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant sent a Notice for Non-Performance to the Corporate Debtor on 20.09.2021. On 15.11.2021 the Appellant also filed a criminal complaint against the Corporate Debtor for over-invoicing and false invoicing under the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Dimapur alleging that the Corporate Debtor had failed to perform their contractual obligations and for abandoning the contractual projects. Prior to issue of the Notice for Non-Performance by the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor had sought its outstanding dues from the Appellant on 26.04.2021. Instead of making any payments, on 24.12.2021, the Appellant instead issued Legal Notice to the Corporate Debtor stating that the right of the Corporate Debtor with respect to the four contracts stood terminated and the Corporate Debtor was directed to refund all amounts which had been paid as advance along with interest and other charges. 3. In the meantime, on 13.12.2021, the Corporate Debtor was admitted into insolvency under a Section 9 Application filed by an Operational Creditor following which an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed. Following the commencement of CIRP of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.2023 based upon non-performance and breach of contract by the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant raised a claim of Rs 18.50 Cr on account of the losses incurred due to inflated invoices, extra-additional bills raised, billing of non-performed AMC and losses on expected projected profits along with break-up in the claim Form-F. 5. It is the case of the Appellant that the RP failed in his duty to properly look into the admissibility of the claims of the Appellant. It was vehemently contended that their claim though duly quantified had been rejected mechanically by the RP within a period of 3 days which is substantiated by the fact that the RP did not even bother to seek any clarifications from the Appellant on their claims. It was also submitted that the RP had no adjudicatory power under the IBC to unilaterally reject the claims without the approval of the Committee of Creditors ( CoC in short). In support of their contention, the Appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI AIR (2019) 4 SCC 17 as followed by this Tribunal in the matter of M/s Prasad Gempex Vs Star Agro Marine Export Pvt. Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins) No.291 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per-technical manner and perfunctorily overlooked the claims of the Appellant. Inspite of being fully aware of the breach of the contractual agreement by the Corporate Debtor, the RP failed to take into account the contingent claim arising thereof. 7. It is also the contention of the Appellant that they had filed their claim before the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC. The resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor was approved by the CoC in the 13th meeting of CoC held on 25.09.2023. It was contended that the claim of the Appellant was filed on 12.09.2023 which was prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC. Hence the rejection of the claim was arbitrary and mechanical and contrary to principles of law enunciated by the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal. In support of their contention, it was pointed out that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State Tax Officer Vs Rainbow Papers Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 had held that delay in filing a claim cannot be a sole ground for rejecting a claim. It was also asserted that Regulation 12 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 ( CIRP Regulations in short) whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant was a counterpoise to the Section 9 proceeding initiated by the RP against the Appellant. 9. Advancing their arguments further it was pointed out that the claims could not have been admitted as they were filed after a delay of 548 days which was severely belated. The RP had published the Information Memorandum on 19.07.2023. The claim in Form-F was filed much after the publication of the Information Memorandum. Resolution Plans has already been received from the resolution applicants and was at the final stage of approval of the CoC. At this stage, if such belated claims were to be allowed, the plans already received from the prospective resolution applicants would flounder as these were predicated on the basis of Information Memorandum which already stood published three months back. This would act as an impediment in the timely resolution of Corporate Debtor and lead to unavoidable delay of the CIRP. Hence the RP decided not to admit the claim in the interest of timely insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtor. 10. Reliance was placed by the RP on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Mukul Kumar and Ors. (2023)10 SCC 718 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e public announcement, may submit his claim with proof to the interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, up to the date of issue of request for resolution plans under regulation 36-B or ninety days from the insolvency commencement date, whichever is later: Provided further that the creditor shall provide reasons for delay in submitting the claim beyond the period of ninety days from the insolvency commencement date. Regulation 13: Verification of claims. 13. (1) The interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, shall verify every claim, as on the insolvency commencement date, within seven days from the last date of the receipt of the claims, and thereupon maintain a list of creditors containing names of creditors along with the amount claimed by them, the amount of their claims admitted and the security interest, if any, in respect of such claims, and update it. (1B) In the event that claims are received after the period specified under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12 and up to seven days before the date of meeting of creditors for voting on the resolution plan or the initiation of liquidation, as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. 4. It is therefore clear that the alleged Claimant has filed his claim in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor as an afterthought, merely as a backlash to the commencement of Section 9 proceedings against such alleged Claimant by the undersigned, in his capacity as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. 5. Without prejudice to the above, it is further pointed out that the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor had commenced on 13.12.2021. Subsequent thereto, the Interim Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor had published a public announcement inviting the public at large to file their claims in such CIRP of the Corporate Debtor by or before 27.12.2021. Even otherwise, Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations provide an extended period of 90 days from the date of commencement of CIRP of a corporate debtor for the creditors to file their claims with its RP. Any claim filed subsequent thereto is liable to be rejected by the RP. In the present case, the 90 day extended period for filing of claims had elapsed on 13.03.2022. The alleged Claimant filed his claim with the undersigned only on 12.09.2023, i.e., after a delay of 548 days. As on the date of filing of such claim, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein the claim amount was also duly quantified by them. It is the case of the Appellant that any person who has right to claim payment is supposed to file the claim whether matured or unmatured as decided in the Export Import Bank judgement supra. 19. When we look at the reason ascribed by the RP for being unable to admit the claim, we find that the RP has pointed out that the claim of the Corporate Debtor is based on certain allegations of purported non-performance/breach of contract against the Corporate Debtor and that the breach was neither under adjudication nor any judicial authority had passed any specific judicial order to the effect of validating the breach. Further being bereft of adjudicatory powers, the RP submitted that it was not in a position to admit the claim. 20. At this juncture, we need to refer to the particulars of Form-F, which finds place at page 513 of the APB. The claims raised by the Appellant therein have been categorised under three heads. One Head is shown as Inflated invoices raised by the CD, extra bills raised by the CD for supply of the cables when the cables were already included in the invoice of Supply of Material of the contract, AMC was not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a matter of court record has also not been controverted by the Appellant. It is therefore an undisputed fact that the Appellant was aware of the ongoing CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor much before he opted to file his claims. Hence, the Appellant cannot deny the factum that he was fully aware of the knowledge of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor having commenced and the consequential requirement on his part to file claims in a timely manner. We are therefore of the considered view that there are no mitigating factors in favour of the Appellant to justify the filing of belated claims. 23. This brings us to the contention of the Appellant that the claim was filed by them before the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC and hence could not have been rejected on grounds of delay. It was asserted that in terms of CIRP Regulations 13(1)(B), claims received up to seven days before the date of meeting of creditors for voting on the resolution plan, the RP is to verify all such claims and categorise them as acceptable or non-acceptable for collation. Hence the rejection of the claim on grounds of delay was arbitrary. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48 days and that too the claims arise from damages and breach of contract which according to the Appellant is admittedly contingent, the RP s action to reject the claim by way of a reasoned reply to the Appellant cannot be put to fault. We have already held that the process followed by the RP was reasonably transparent and not found to be marred by arbitrariness or irregularities as such. We find sense in the contention of the RP that if the claims of creditors are to be accepted by the RP in a perfunctory manner inspite of such a humungous delay of 548 days and that too without cogent grounds substantiating the delay, it would disrupt the successful resolution of the Corporate Debtor and tantamount to defeating the objectives of IBC of making CIRP a time-bound process. Prima-facie, we do not find any incidence of unfairness or guile on the part of the RP in the manner in which it dealt with the claim preferred by the Appellant. We do not find any justifiable reason to doubt the bonafide of the RP in not admitting the claim of the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority had not committed any error in the given facts and circumstances in not acceding to the request of the Appellant fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
