TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esented the Ex-Directors of the Corporate Debtor in their personal capacity and therefore the Resolution Professional sought for information from the Appellant herein to ascertain the liability of the Corporate Debtor against the claims preferred by the Appellant. Admittedly, the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor was passed by a majority of 87.57% Voting by the CoC Members way back on 17.10.2019 and this Application was preferred by the Appellants in September, 2019, which was listed on 22.10.2019 and disposed of vide Order dated 17.03.2021. In the absence of any cogent reasons for having delayed supplying the information to the RP who had sought for clarification on 16.04.2019, but the Appellant had admittedly provided the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are found to be genuine after due verification. If the information provided by any debtor is incomplete or if the RP is of the opinion that the claim is invalid, he may invite such further information as he deems fit, which is what was duly done in the present case. 15. The RP submits that in September, 2019 when the resolution plan was being considered by the Committee of Creditors the instant Application was moved by the Applicant which was listed on 30.09.2019. It is submitted that on 17.10.2019 the resolution plan was already approved by the CoC with 87.57% voting share. Consequently, the Application for approval of Resolution Plan was filed by the Resolution Professional before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which is still pendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, the NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count. Hence, once a Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC, no undecided claim can be accepted which will amount to 'hydra head popping', which would throw into uncertainty the amounts payable by the prospective Resolution Applicant who successfully takes over the business of the Corporate Debtor......... 20. We have perused the relevant documents and submissions made by the counsels and find force in the contention of the Respondent that the resolution professional has sought for the clarifications/ documents with regard to the claim. The Applicant sat on their unsubstantiated claim for long time, without furnishing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant preferred their claim with the IRP on 18.12.2018, for which the IRP sought details of various matters handled and managed by the Appellant vide letter dated 23.01.2019. Subsequently, an RP was appointed on 12.02.2019 and the Appellant once again provided the information to the new RP on 11.03.2019. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the RP neither accepted nor verified the same within the specified time limit, and sent an email dated 16.04.2019 seeking further clarifications. Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant once again provided clarifications sought for by the RP on 12.07.2019. Even after receipt of the email dated 12.07.2019, the RP did not respond regarding the acceptance of the claim of the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittee of Creditors. 6. In the instant case, the information sought for by the RP vide email dated 16.04.2019 was provided by the Appellants vide email dated 12.07.2019, after a clear gap of three months. There are no substantial reasons given for this delay of three months specially keeping in view that IBC mandates a timebound process. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant represented the Ex-Directors of the Corporate Debtor in their personal capacity and therefore the Resolution Professional sought for information from the Appellant herein to ascertain the liability of the Corporate Debtor against the claims preferred by the Appellant. Admittedly, the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor was passed by a majority of 87.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 31 of the Code is applicable in their case, cannot be sustained as we do not find any material irregularity on the face of record to set the clock back, since the lapse is on behalf of the Appellant in delaying to provide the information sought for by the RP. 9. We are of the considered view that the ratio of the Hon ble Apex Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited, (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. For ready reference, the relevant para is reproduced as hereunder: 107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment [Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 388] in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resoluti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
