Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (8) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 547 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking for direction to the Respondents to pay their dues to the Corporate Debtor, being the benefits received by them from the Corporate Debtor - related parties or not - transactions with related party is hit by Section 43 or not - Section 43 and 45 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The sale of flats at a lower price is explained stating that it is due to the disputes between the builder and the Corporate Debtor, the fact that there are disputes is not countered by the Applicant. Apart from there being no sufficient material to hold that the transactions alleged are preferential transactions. The ground raised by the Corporate Debtor with regard to the maintainability of this application needs to be considered. The contention is that the Resolution Plan is already approved and hence, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain this Application. It is submitted that the Resolution Professional (RP) has vacated his office on 25.06.2021 and hence, he cannot pursue the present application. There is no dispute that the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT on 25.06.2021 and thereafter corrigendum was also approved on 10.07.2021. The contention with regard to this aspect by the Applicant is that this application as filed even before the Resolution Plan was approved by this Tribunal and hence, the said limitation does not apply to this Application. But the rationale underlying the ruling that an avoidance application cannot be entertained after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT holds good even if the avoidance application is pending prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan and is not decided till the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Tribunal. The contention that the avoidance applications would be pending at the stage when the RP files the plan was also appreciated and it was held that though at the first blush the said submission may appear attractive a closer analysis reveals that Form-H seeks to achieve what is mandated in Regulations and it is merely a format prescribed to provide the said details. Under the Scheme of IBC in so far as avoidance applications are concerned the RP has to collect the details, form an opinion, make a determination and submit the same to the NCLT within the prescribed timelines. This is independent of the various other steps which are part of the CIRP. The activities in respect of objectionable transactions which the RP has to conduct would run parallel with the other steps of the CIRP - Section 26 of IBC also cannot be read in a manner so as to mean that an Application for avoidance of transactions under Section 25(2)(j) can survive after the CIRP process. Once the CIRP process itself comes to an end an application for avoidance of transactions cannot be adjudicated. Application dismissed.
|