9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Simran Jeet, Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Mr. Sameer Sethi, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN , J. These two Appeals have been filed against the same order dated 22.11.2023 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I in IA No.2114 of 2023 and IA No.2117 of 2023 filed by the Appellants respectively, which were dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. The case of the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 192 of 2024 is that Appellant No.2 has advanced money to D.S. Kulkarni Co. in 2015. It is submitted that the Directors/ Members/ Partners/ Shareholders of the D.S. Kulkarni Co. were the same as of Corporate Debtor. In 2017, Corporate Debtor decided to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor on 30.09.2019, to which the Appellants were unaware and the Appellants after coming to know about CIRP filed their claim on 29.03.2023 in Form-CA, which was not accepted by the RP and IA No.2117 of 2023 was filed by the Appellant for admission of the claim. 4. The Adjudicating Authority heard the Applications and by the impugned order dismissed both the Applications. Following was the reason given by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 7 for rejecting both the Applications: "7. We find that this Tribunal has approved the Resolution Plan in the case of Corporate Debtor vide its Order dated 23.06.2023 in IA 1950 of 2021. Accordingly, the claims of the Applicants can not be considered even in terms of decision of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The learned Counsel for the RP refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the CIRP commenced against the Corporate Debtor on 26.09.2019. The public announcement was made on 30.09.2019 and List of Creditors was issued on 09.08.2021. On 13.08.2021, the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC. The RP has filed an IA No.1950 of 2021 on 24.08.2021 for approval of the Resolution Plan, in which Application, orders were reserved on 22.02.2023. The claims were filed by the Appellant on 29.03.2023, which rightly has not been admitted. The Resolution Plan having been approved by the CoC on 13.08.2021, no new claim can be admitted. It is submitted that the judgment in Puneet Kaur is not applicable. It is further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the aforesaid, we are of the view that when the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC and it is pending before the Adjudicating Authority for approval, at this stage, if new claims are entertained the CIRP would be jeopardized and the Resolution Process may become more difficult. Keeping in view the object of the IBC which is resolution of Corporate Debtor in time bound manner to maximize the value, if such request of claimant is accepted the purpose of IBC would be defeated. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd. (Supra) held as under:- 88. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Appeal filed by the RPS Infrastructure Ltd. laid down following in paragraph 18 to 24: "18. We have examined the aforesaid submissions. The only issue before us is whether the appellant's claim pertaining to an arbitral award, which is in appeal under Section 37 of the said Act, is liable to be included at a belated stage - i.e. after the resolution plan has been approved by the COC. 19. It is undisputed that the process followed by Respondent 1 was not flawed in any manner, except to the extent of whether an endeavour should have been made by Respondent 1 to locate the liabilities pertaining to the said award from the records of the corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. 23. The mere fact that the adjudicating authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel [Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443] , the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC. 24. We have thus come to the conclusion that NCLAT's impugned judgment [Mukul Kumar v. RPS Infrastructure Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 648] cannot be faulted to reopen the chapter at the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
