Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 34 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - Seeking consideration of claim of Respondent on merits - Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - For inviting claims, service through paper publication is not proper service - HELD THAT:- In exercise of the powers conferred under Ss. 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 196 and 208 read with s. 240 of IBC, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India framed the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (Regulations). Regulation 6 provides the manner of public announcement. There is no allegation against the erstwhile IRP that he has not made a public announcement as per the manner provided in Regulation 6. There is no provision in the Regulations that for inviting claims, the IRP/RP is required to effect personal service. The RP has not made necessary efforts to get the records from ex-management - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the Respondent that RP has deliberately acted so the rightful creditors may not able to file their claims and thereby they may not become the member of CoC. It is pointed out that the RP has indeed made sincere efforts to procure the records of the Corporate Debtor. The IRP has also filed an Application under Section 19 of the IBC seeking proper direction of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to the ex-management to provide all the records. This fact is not denied by the Respondent in his reply to the Appeal. Thus, we are unable to hold that the RP has failed to do his bounden duty as assigned in the IBC and Regulations. The RP has not gathered information about the creditors of Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- Ld. Adjudicating Authority is not pointing out that what type of efforts RP should make to ascertain the Creditors. Aforesaid finding is a general remark, therefore we cannot hold that the RP has failed to perform his duty assigned in the IBC and Regulations. The RP has hurriedly wrapped up the company with a Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the CIRP was conducted by the IRP/RP as per the provisions of IBC and Regulations and there is nothing on record to presume that the IRP/RP have hurriedly wrapped up the company with the Resolution Plan. The RP should not have summarily rejected the claim of the Respondent on the ground that claim has not been filed within time and the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC - HELD THAT:- Whenever any claim is filed after extended period provided in Regulation 12 (2) of the Regulations, the RP should have rejected the claim. The Legislation has not provided any discretion to RP for admitting the claim after the extended period. When the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC and it is pending before the Adjudicating Authority for approval, at this stage, if new claims are entertained the CIRP would be jeopardized and the Resolution Process may become more difficult. Keeping in view the object of the IBC which is resolution of Corporate Debtor in time bound manner to maximize the value, if such request of claimant is accepted the purpose of IBC would be defeated - the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has erroneously directed the RP to consider the claim of the Respondent which is apparently filed after a delay of 287 days, before that the CoC has already approved the Resolution Plan. Appeal allowed.
|