TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r from the date of commencement of the liquidation proceedings and Regulation 44(2) stipulates that, after the expiry of one year, the liquidator shall file an application to the Authority to continue the liquidation period along with a report and explain why the liquidation has not been completed. Thus, it can be seen that the Liquidation is a time bound process and the Liquidator is being made accountable and required to explain, if there is any delay caused in the liquidation process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. Another [ 2019 (9) TMI 1019 - SUPREME COURT] , in relation to the aspect of limitation has restated the well established and well settled principle that there is no equity about limitation , we are unable to entertain this Application/Appeal. In view of the IBC, 2016 being a time bound process as well as the Learned Liquidator being under a compulsion to complete the liquidation process within a period of one year from the date of commencement of liquidation. Petition dismissed. - CP/02/CHE/2021 in CP/546/CAA/2020 in CA/216/CAA/2020 in TCP/10/IB/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-4-2021 - R. Varadhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of ₹ 13.76 Crores on 09.08.2017 and the RP had only partly admitted the claim of the Applicant Company and updated the List of Creditors on 22.06.2018. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, in the meantime, the Corporate Debtor was ordered for Liquidation by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2018 passed in MA/289/2018 and the 1st Respondent herein was appointed as the Liquidator, who has issued public announcement to submit the claim forms on or before 10.01.2019. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant Company has submitted the claim before the Liquidator on 24.06.2019 and the Liquidator till date has not responded to the claim submitted by the Applicant Company. It was further submitted that in accordance with Regulation 31 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Liquidator ought to have updated the list of stakeholders in the website of the 1st Respondent Company, however till date the Liquidator has not uploaded the list of stakeholders in the website of the 1st Respondent Company. Further, it was submitted that the name of the Applicant Company was removed from the list of stakeholders as prepar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have the power to condone the delay and accept the claims which have been filed belatedly and since the delay was not explained by the Applicant, the Liquidator has rightly rejected the claim of the Applicant. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Liquidator further submitted that the provisions of IBC requires the Liquidation process to be completed in a time bound manner and it is precisely for this reason specific time frame has been fixed in the code and in the regulations for the submission of the claim and if the claims could be considered endlessly, the provisions of the code and regulations would be rendered nugatory. 10. Further, it was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Liquidator that as per the documents submitted by the Applicant, the claim of the Applicant Company is prima facie barred by limitation and it was also submitted that the Applicant has not submitted any documents evidencing the acknowledgment of liability from NOCL as contemplated under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 along with the Claim Form. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submitted that the claim in respect of workmen and employees alone are required to be admitted by the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reason in writing for rejection of the claim and the same is also required to be communicated to the Applicant. In relation to his decision of admission or rejection, the Liquidator is required to communicate to both the creditors and the Corporate Debtor within seven days of such admission or rejection of the claim. As against the rejection of the claim, Section 42 of I B Code, 2016 provides for a time window of 14 days upon receipt of such decision to the creditor to file an appeal to the Adjudicating Authority against the said decision of the Liquidator. 14. It may also be seen that the Applicant during the CIRP period also has preferred to file a claim before the IRP/RP and as per the provisions of IBC, 2016 the Applicant ought to have filed the claim before the Liquidator after the commencement of the Liquidation proceedings, which he has not done so. Further, the Applicant in the present Application has not ascribed any reasons as to the delay in preferring the claim before the Liquidator. Further, in relation to the objections as raised by the Applicant Company in respect of the Scheme of Compromise, the same has been dealt in detail by this Tribunal vide its order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
