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 63 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCHSeeking issuance of direction to the Respondents, to make payment towards the Applicant’s Claim from the Contingency Fund - documents enough to establish their claim or not - Section 60(5) of the I & B Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. Whether the Resolution Professional was right in rejecting claims of Appellants with reasoning that the documents were not enough to establish their claim? - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal has noted that during the pleadings and averments made by the ₹ 2nd Respondent that he had no access to the Corporate Debtor’s books of accounts and records, and he had no access to the SAP portal to verify the Appellant’s claim. This proved to be a handicap for the Resolution Professional for verifying the Claims, especially, when the Appellant had failed to furnish / supply the required documents, to establish his claims, as requested by the 2nd Respondent through email. The approval of a Resolution Plan gives the Corporate Debtor a fresh start and resolves, once and for all, the financial position of the Corporate Debtor as it stood on the day of approval of the Resolution Plan, in order to allow it to have a clean slate for the future. This Tribunal also notices that 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. Thus, the provisions in the I & B Code, 2016 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. Whether the relief sought by the Appellant for payment of Rs. 62,31,242/- towards claim from contingency fund admissible? - HELD 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 - this Tribunal upholds the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to be a correct and proper one, on this issue. Appeal dismissed.
|