TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the RP was allowed and it was held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in directing the RP to consider the claim of Respondent, which was filed with a delay of 287 days, where the CoC has already approved the Resolution Plan. In the present case, the claims were filed by the Appellant on 29.03.2023, when the Resolution Plan was already approved by the CoC on 13.08.2021. The Application for approval of Resolution Plan was also heard and order was reserved on 22.02.2023 as stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. In the facts of the present case, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting Applications filed by the Appellants. It is also relevant to notice that Adjudicating Authority by order dated 23.06.2023 has already approved the Resolution Plan, which Plan approval order has been challenged by the Appellants by means of Company Appeal, which Appeals are still pending for consideration. Thus, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority - appeal dismissed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson And [ Mr. Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellants : Appeared, but attendance not marked For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Hon ble NCLAT in the matter of Puneet Kaur, through her Attorney Amrit Pal Singh vs K V Developers Private Limited - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 390 of 2022, wherein it was held that the claims of homebuyer if found in the books of accounts, can be considered even after approval of the plan by CoC in terms of directions stated in the said decision. In the present case, even the Plan stands approved by this Tribunal, and this Tribunal can not give directions t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Application for approval of Resolution Plan was reserved on 22.02.2023 and the claims were filed only on 29.03.2023. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar Anr. (2023) 10 SCC 718. In Mukul Kumar s case, the claim was filed with a delay of 287 days, which was based on arbitral award. The Appeal filed by the RP was allowed and it was held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in directing the RP to consider the claim of Respondent, which was filed with a delay of 287 days, where the CoC has already approved the Resolution Plan. This Tribunal in its judgment in Mukul Kumar in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1050 of 2020 Mukul Kumar Resolution Professional of KST Infrastructure Ltd. vs. RPS Infrastructure Ltd., laid down following in paragraph 34 and 35: 34. With 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an 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 debtor. 20. If we analyse the aforesaid plea, it is quite obvious that Respondent 1 did what could be done to procure the corporate debtor's records by even moving an application under Section 19 IBC. That it was not fruitful is a consequence of the corporate debtor not making available the material. It is thus not even known whether there was a reflection in the records on this aspect or not. 21. The second question is whether the delay in the filing of claim by the appellant ought to have been condoned by Respondent 1. The IBC is a time bound process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which the time can be increased. The question is whether the present case would fall within those parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of 287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the corporate debtor is an undoubted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
