TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given directions to the RP to consider the claim in some cases but after the amendment till the approval of the resolution plan by the committee was substituted by on or before the 90th day of the insolvency commencement date. Herein the case in hand, as we notice that the CIRP was initiated on January 27, 2020 and thereafter, the public announcement was made and within the prescribed period no claim was placed by the applicant. We further notice that, in view of the amended regulation 12(2) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, the claim was not filed within the 90 days of the insolvency commencement date. Due to pandemic the lockdown was imposed by the Government the claim could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was duly presented before the RP at an appropriate stage which war ranted admission as per the settled law. (e) pass any other order this hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The facts mentioned in the application in brief are as follows : (i) The CIRP against the corporate debtor was initiated on January 27, 2020 and the respondent has appointed as the IRP, i. e., Mr. Sunil Kumar Agrawal. (ii) That the IRP has made the public announcement for inviting claims from creditors up to February 12, 2020 in the newspapers on January 31, 2020 against the corporate debtor. (iii) Further, the applicant has missed the publication, therefore, the applicant could not file the claim within the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Roads Ltd., In re (I. B. No. 737(PB) of 2018), an application was filed by one AMA Agencies P. Ltd., before the hon'ble Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi. In the matter of Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. P. Ltd. v. Adel Landmarks Ltd. (I. B. No. 1083(PB) of 2018). In State Bank of India v. ARGL Ltd. (I. B. No. 531(PB) of 2019) the Principal Bench of the hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi. (xii) Further, the RP has appeared and filed the reply and the facts of the reply in short is that the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable because the present application is filed only to mislead this Tribunal, delay the entire process/proceedings and waste the valuable tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP against the corporate debtor soon thereafter, he has filed the claim before the RP but the RP has rejected the same. 7. He further submitted that regulation 12(2) is not mandatory rather directory as held by the hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal in a series of decisions. 8. He further submitted that considering the submissions and the averments made in the application, claim of the applicant may be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the RP submitted that the applicant had submitted the claim much after the publication of the advertisement. 10. He further submitted that the applicant in its application has admitted this fact that the last date for submission of the claim was February 12, 2020. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in some cases but after the amendment till the approval of the resolution plan by the committee was substituted by on or before the 90th day of the insolvency commencement date. Herein the case in hand, as we notice that the CIRP was initiated on January 27, 2020 and thereafter, the public announcement was made and within the prescribed period no claim was placed by the applicant. We further notice that, in view of the amended regulation 12(2) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, the claim was not filed within the 90 days of the insolvency commencement date. 13. At this juncture, we would like to refer the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant who in course of his arguments submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
