Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1475 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor had committed default in making the payment of rent - Non-admission of claim of the Applicant vide the updated List of the Petitioner's Creditors - Operational Creditor or not - HELD THAT:- There is no requirement to discuss all those legal points at length. In the opinion of this Bench the Resolution Professional was duty bound to ascertain the correct facts, that too, after due diligence and investigation, hence in his wisdom rightly appointed A&M. As per Section 25 of Insolvency Code duties of Resolution Professional has been assigned, hence in compliance an investigation was carried out by appointing an Agency so as to ascertain whether the transaction as claimed by the Applicant CRPL was genuine and correct. On investigation it was reported that the transaction was extortionate, preferential in nature, incorrect and fraudulent, hence, the claim allegedly made as Operational debt was rejected - Application dismissed. Refund of amount attached/recovered from the State Bank Account by Commercial Tax Department - HELD THAT:- The admitted factual position is that the 'Moratorium' had commenced by admitting the Petition filed by RICOH India Limited U/s 10 of the (I&B) Code vide Order dated 14.05.2018, therefore, Section 14 of I&B Code shall apply which prohibits recovery or alienation or disposing of any of the property of the Corporate debtor. Due to the declaration of "Moratorium" the action of recovery from the State Bank account of the Corporate Debtor is barred by Law. As a consequence, the concerned authorities are hereby directed to reverse the recovery entries by refunding back the amount recovered. The amount so refunded shall be kept in a "No Lien Account" or an "Escrow Account" of the Corporate Debtor to be controlled and operated by Resolution Professional under the instructions of NCLT Bench - Application allowed. Directions to the Resolution Professional to accept the claim of the Applicant - rejection because of belated submission - HELD THAT:- This Bench is of the view that considering few judgments of NCLAT a lodgment of claim can be entertained by the Resolution Professional if it is within a reasonable time and going to effect substantially a Resolution Plan already under consideration before Committee of Creditors - Resultantly this Bench is of the view that under the circumstances when a Resolution Plan is already under consideration which ought to have been based upon the information memorandum prepared and published by Resolution Professional having details of Tax liability, therefore, the right of claim of the Tax Department would have already been taken into account under the provisions of Insolvency Code. However, in a situation when a Tax demand is finalized or matured after the said advertisement of information memorandum, the same is always subject to the proposal incorporated in a Resolution Plan. The present position in this case is that a Resolution Plan is already in hand, hence at this stage when the Committee of Creditors had already forwarded for approval of this Bench, it is not practically possible to entertain any fresh claim. At the most this Bench shall consider the provision made by the Resolution Applicant in the Resolution Plan sub judice for decision - Application disposed off as redundant. Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - HELD THAT:- As prescribed under the Code and the Regulations the Committee of Creditors as well as the Resolution Professional have followed the procedure which is evident from the list of events placed for due consideration of this Bench. It is a case where due opportunity was granted to all the Resolution Applicants, moreover, the most attractive plan was sanctioned for approval by the Adjudicating Authority. This is not a case where the Committee of Creditors has not applied commercial wisdom judicially. Rather the basis on which the Committee of Creditors had approved the Resolution Plan shall again be scrutinized at the time of considering the Resolution Plan placed before this Bench for due approval as per law - this Bench is of the conscientious view that no interference is required in the majority decision of the Members of Committee of Creditors - Application rejected.
|