Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 65 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyRejection of claims of appellant - enough documents to establish the claim, is present or not - Verification and settlement of unresolved claim under the caption under verification - seeking direction to Respondent No. 2 to consequently pass appropriate direction on the claim of the Appellant - payment towards claim from the contingency fund admissible. HELD THAT:- In the instant Appeal, before this Tribunal, the Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan on 20.01.2020, and has taken umbrage of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in GHANASHYAM MISHRA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY VERSUS EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH THE DIRECTOR & ORS. [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had made the observations on the “Clean Slate Theory” and stated that “if additional liabilities are allowed to be imposed on the Successful Resolution Applicant after the approval of the plan, the entire plan would become unworkable”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had mentioned that such surprise Debts cannot be put upon the Resolution Applicant, which were not laid down in its Resolution Plan. If that is allowed, the very calculations on which the Resolution Applicants rely to submit their Resolution Plans, would go awry. This Tribunal also notices that the amended provision as contained in Section 31 of I & B Code, 2016 makes the Successful Resolution Plan binding on all concerned, including the Government’. It is held in the judicial pronouncement that this particular Amendment to be clarificatory in nature and hence, retroactive / retrospective in operation. Therefore, any Claim, even if it pertains to a date, prior to the effective date of this Amendment, would not be entertained after the Resolution Plan is so approved. This Tribunal upholds the decision of the Resolution Professional adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority to reject the Claims of the Appellant on the basis that claims are unsupported and documentary evidence furnished by the Appellant were not proper - there are no error in the impugned order. Whether the relief sought by the Appellant for the payment of Rs. 18,30,894/- towards claim from the Contingency Fund admissible? - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal pertinently points out that the Contingency Fund is for the specific purpose to cater for Claims which were not Determined and settled finally, at the time of the Resolution Plan. There is a stipulated time frame as provided in the Resolution Plan and the Fund after meeting out the requirements of the Claims, ceased to exist. By no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that any Claim can be entertained after the Resolution Plan, was fully implemented and the new management of the Successful Resolution Applicant had taken over. On a qualitative and quantitative rumination of the entire conspectus of the instant Appeal, this Tribunal is in agreement with the decision arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench-II), and the Impugned Order is sustained - Appeal dismissed.
|