Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (4) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1277 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyRejection of claim of application - initiation of CIRP - Condonation of delay of 52 days (12.01.2021 to 04.03.2021) in submission of the claim by the Applicant before the 2nd Respondent in the liquidation process - HELD THAT:- CIRP in respect of CD was initiated by Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 29th October, 2019, at the instance of M/s. Sri Visveswaraya Co-operative Bank Ltd. Accordingly, Public Announcement was given on 20th November, 2019, by inviting claims from creditors of CD in prescribed form with last date as 4th December, 2019 and also specified estimated date of closure of CIRP as 26th April, 2020. Subsequently exclusion/extension of time was granted by Adjudicating Authority, and having failed to get suitable Resolution Plan, the CD was placed under Liquidation process as early as on 2nd December, 2020. However, the Applicant pleading ignorance about the said developments, has in casual way awoke and responded only to public Announcement given under Liquidation process, by submitting its claim only on 04.03.2021, that too after last date was over by citing untenable grounds. The reasons cited by the Applicant that it was unaware of the CIRP/Liquidation of Corporate Debtor, the State would lose its legitimate dues viz., the tax collected from public, it is duty of Liquidator alone to verify its records etc., are not at all tenable. While alleging that the Liquidator has failed to discharge his duties, the Applicant has failed to take any action at appropriate time to recover tax and they cannot wait for proceeding to be initiated by others under provisions of the Code. The Applicant has absolute independent right to initiate appropriate action to recover the tax in question but they have failed to discharge their duties. The reasons cited for delay in approaching the Liquidator are not at all tenable. The Respondent has followed extant provisions of law in continuing proceedings under the provisions of the Code, and the impugned order cannot be interfered with - application dismissed.
|