TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time stipulated in the public announcement, may submit the claim with proof to the IRP or the RP, as the case may be, on or before the ninetieth day of the insolvency commencement date. This deadline of 90 days was introduced by way of an amendment, with effect from July 2018 - Although the introduction of a fixed timeline for submission of claims was more than welcome, the amended Regulation 12 (2) seems to have raised more issues than it purports to resolve. The amended Regulation 12 (2) is silent in regard to the status of creditors who have missed the deadline and are desirous of filing their claims. In the recent orders/judgments, the Hon'ble Tribunals have condoned the delay even after the time period of elapse of ninety days, citing that the amended Regulation 12 (2) is directory. In the present case, the Applicant has failed to establish the reason for the delay in submission of the claim. This led us to the questions that why not the Respondent/RP take cognizance of outstanding statutory dues as per book of accounts of the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent has clearly stated that the alleged dues are not yet quantified and litigations under various authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Authority ordered commencement of CIRP against 2nd Respondent on 24.07.2019 and 1st Respondent was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and subsequently the 1st Respondent/IRP, made public announcement on 27.07.2019 calling for submission of claims from the financial/operational creditors on or before 10.8.2019. The Applicant had filed a claim before the 1st Respondent/IRP on 12.03.2020 in Form-B along with condonation prayer for the delay in filing the claims. By way of email communication dated 29.08.2019, the IRP informed the Petitioner that the claim form was received on 14.03.2020 as against the maximum time limit of 90 days i.e. on 22.10.2019 and also sought for clarification from the Applicant informing that there are 6 licences issued to the 2nd Respondent against which the Applicant had submitted claim in respect of 5 licences only. It is further submitted that on verification in the DGFT website, it was seen that Redemption Letter had already been issued to one Licence bearing EPCG Authorisation No. 0430001576 dated 19.03.2004 and hence there is claim for 5 Licences only as mentioned in the claim Form-B. Further, the 2nd Respondent had vide their letter d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntingent on the outcome of the same. Hence, the Applicant does not have any locus to file this application. 6. Upon scrutinising the documents placed before this Adjudicating Authority, it is seen in accordance with section 15(1)(c) of the Code read with regulation 6(2)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations), once the application for initiation of the CIRP is admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), a public announcement is required to be released by the IRP for inviting claims. The public announcement is required to provide for the last date for submission of such claims from the date of the appointment of the IRP. Further, regulations 7, 8, 9 and 9A of the CIRP Regulations provide for the form and manner in which claims have to be submitted by various creditors. 7. Regulation 12(2) of the CIRP Regulations provides that a creditor, who fails to submit claim with proof within the time stipulated in the public announcement, may submit the claim with proof to the IRP or the RP, as the case may be, on or before the ninetieth day of the insolvency commencement date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory....We wish to make it clear that all the Resolution Professionals shall make a note of these repeated orders passed by NCLT clarifying that claim of an applicant, like the present one, could not be rejected on the ground of delay as the provision has been held to be directory. 14. Interestingly, in State Bank of India v. ARGL Ltd. the Principal Bench of the Hon'ble NCLT, New Delhi, while considering an application of similar nature filed by Central Board of Goods and Service Tax Department indicated that it was irrelevant whether the claim is considered or not, since the government dues would always be reflected in the books of accounts of the corporate debtor and the RP/IRP would be required to take cognizance of the dues as per the books of accounts. Therefore, the application was allowed. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein below: It is true that the regulation 12(2) after amendment has granted liberty to a creditor who has failed to submit the claim with the proof within the time stipulated in the public announcement and such a claimant could submit the claim with proof to the IRP/RP on or before 90th day of Insolvency commencement date. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
