9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Applicants are already before the Committee of Creditors with their Resolution Plan(s) if new claims keep popping up and are entertained, the CIRP would be jeopardized and Resolution Process may become more difficult - keeping in view the object of the I B Code which is Resolution of the Corporate Debtor in time bound manner to maximize value, if such requests of applicants like Appellant are accepted the purpose of I B Code would be defeated. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 420 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2021 - [Justice A.I.S. Cheema] The Officiating Chairperson And [Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Devashish Bhadauria, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Madhusudan Sharma, Advocate for R1. ORDER (Through Virtual Mode) Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional. The Respondent No.2 in this Appeal is stated to be the Successful Resolution Applicant . 2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant claiming that the Appellant is Operational Creditor who had to recover ₹ 33,23,718/- from the Corporate Debtor- Jason Dekor Private ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the same was filed belatedly. 4. Counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that the claim filed was delayed. It is also stated that the CIRP is now at the stage where the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the Committee of Creditors and the same has been filed before the Adjudicating Authority for approval. 5. Regulation 12 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, reads as under:- 12. Submission of proof of claims. (1) Subject to sub-regulation (2), a creditor shall submit 22[claim with proof] on or before the last date mentioned in the public announcement. (2) 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 interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, on or before the ninetieth day of the insolvency commencement date. (3) Where the creditor in sub-regulation (2) is a financial creditor under regulation 8], it shall be included in the committee from the date of admission of such claim: Provided that such inclusion shall n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as 07.01.2020. However, the Applicant has submitted its claim only on 15.09.2020, much beyond the stipulated time as well as extended period of 90 days. It is to be mentioned herein that the lockdown period is from 25th March 2020 till 31st May 2020 and applicant lodged his claim only on 15.09.2020, i.e. after eight months of the last date and have also not explained about the delay caused. It is matter of record that RP has already provided Information Memorandum (IM) to Resolution Applicant on 04.07.2020, where applicant has lodged her claim on 15.09.2020. 6. The Applicant has cited various case laws of the Hon ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble NCLAT and Hon ble Principal Bench, there is no dispute with regard to those case laws. However, each case has its own merits, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Resolution Plan has already been received by the CoC as apprised by the RP and it is at the final stage of approval of the CoC (as per RP). At this belated stage, if such types of applications are allowed, the Resolution Plans already received by the CoC from the prospective Resolution Applicants, may get fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertinent to mention herein that this is not an isolated claim, there is one more application pending for adjudication, who filed its claim before the RP in much belated stage and now approached this Adjudicating Authority for condonation of delay, when the Resolution Plan is at the verge of approval. If this application is allowed, then, there is every likelihood that the Resolution Applicants may withdraw their plan, as it will be a burden with other huge claims of the creditors, which they might have not planned earlier, while giving the resolution plan based on the IM. Thus, under such situation, the Corporate Debtor may be pushed for liquidation. xxx xxx xxx 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta Ors, unequivocally held that the entire time period within which the CIRP ought to be completed is strictly mandatory in nature and cannot be extended. It relied on the primary objective of the Code, which is to ensure a timely resolution process for a CD and principles of statutory interpretation to hold that the literal language of section 12 mandates strict adherence to the time frame it lays down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
