Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2018 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1941 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAISeeking direction to Resolution Professional to admit the entire claim with interest - Resolution Professional had rejected part of the claim - HELD THAT:- At the outset it is worth to mention that as per Regulation 7 of IBBI Regulations, 2016 in respect of “Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons” a claim can be made by an Operational Creditor. However, under Regulation 14 it is prescribed “Determination of Amount of Claim” according to which where the amount claimed by a Creditor is not precise due to any contingency, the IRP or the Resolution Professional shall make the best estimate of the amount of the Claim based on the information available. The IRP/ Resolution Professional can revise the amount of claim admitted as soon as he comes across additional information warranting such revision. In my humble opinion the Resolution Professional has been provided this authority to adjudge the veracity of a Claim. The amount which according to him is not admissible can be revised as prescribed under Regulation 14 of the Regulations, 2016. Whether such decision of revising a claim can be challenged before NCLT? - HELD THAT:- The answer of this question is that considering the various provisions of the Insolvency Code to be read with Regulations, the NCLT has inherent power to supervise the decision of IRP/ Resolution Professional. Although Resolution Professional is authorised to determine an amount of Claim by making certain adjustments but the correctness of the adjustments can be examined by NCLT. In view of this interpretation it is hereby held that the NCLT has inherent power to go into the details of the claim made and thereafter examine the correctness of adjustment, if any, made by the Resolution Professional and finally pronounce its decision - Under the present circumstances it was implied that the delay in payment shall bear the Interest burden. It was logically argued that in the absence of any express condition agreed upon between the parties that no Interest would be charged even if payment is defaulted, the claim along with Interest is legally permissible. Disallowance of Inventory Cost - HELD THAT:- Prima facie this Bench is not convinced with the reasoning given by Ld. Resolution Professional to disallow this substantial claim in its entirety. At best, a decision could have been taken only after a reasonable investigation/ enquiry. This Bench is of the view that the Ld. Resolution Professional shall re-examine this claim on the basis of the Accounts and evidences of BHEL and if the evidences corroborate the claim, the same should also be taken into account while finalising the total claim of BHEL. Rest of the decisions of the Ld. Resolution Professional need no interference at this stage. Application allowed in part.
|