9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n distribution of proceeds of Liquidation Estate to other Stakeholders; and d. Reimbursement of legal costs incurred in prosecuting this application. 2. The Applicant has been supplying bunkers and essential goods to Varun Resources Limited from at least on or about 2014 and the Corporate Debtor was admitted in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process vide Order dated 14.06.2017 passed by this Tribunal commencing the process from that day. As resolution failed, the Corporate Debtor went into liquidation vide order dated 04.12.2018 passed by this Tribunal. Public advertisement was issued inviting claims from stakeholders, and the last date for submission of the claims under Liquidation Process was 02.01.2019. The Applicant filed its claim during the CIRP period for the supplies made prior to June 2017, however no claim was filed in Liquidation Process within the prescribed time. 2.1. The Resolution Professional, his email-dated 21.01.2019 drew the Applicant's attention to file their claim not later than 7 days from 21.01.2019 i.e. up to 28.01.2019. On 22.01.2019, the Applicant requested for 14 days to file the claim as the in-charge person was traveling. It is important t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bunkers and fresh water on board the vessel between 23.07.2017 and 27.07.2017. 4. The Resolution Professional filed his reply dated 13.06.2023 stating that The Applicant attempts to circumvent the provisions of law as it attempts to have its claim adjudicated under section 60(5) of the IBC, whereas the reliefs are in the nature of section 42 of the IBC and the Applicant fails to disclose how the same is within limitation and when did the cause of action actually arise for the very first time. As the Applicant has failed to challenge the rejection letter dated 30.03.2019, the Applicant is conveniently filing the present application under the cloak/disguise of section 60(5) of the IBC, as the Applicant is also very well aware that the time period to challenge the rejection letter dated 30.03.2019 is inordinately delayed. Moreover, failure to challenge the rejection letter and failure the claim during the liquidation process, results in crystallization of the claim as per the invoices no. 11239/17, 11240/17 and 11241/17, aggregating to USD 172,182.97 by the Respondent. Thus, the Applicant cannot seek to revive its claim by filing the application under section 60(5) of the IBC. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the Applicant shall be provided under IBC. 4.6. The CIRP costs can be paid only when the funds are available with the Corporate Debtor, and immediate source of funds was sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor, which stuck on account suit before the Admiralty Court, which got delayed on account of Applicant's non co-operation and non response to the Respondent request to issue its NOC from so that the claims of the Dushyant Patel and Gujarat Mariners could be settled. Considering, the suppliers of the Applicant i.c. Dushyant Patel and Gujarat Mariners had already filed their claim before the Hon'ble Admiralty Court, it was imperative for their claims to be adjudicated so as to reach a logical conclusion with respect to the claims of the Applicant. However, the Applicant failed to comprehend the urgency and kept withholding/denying granting the NOC for reasons best known to them, although the Applicant was assured and repeatedly conveyed orally and in writing that Dushyant Patel and Gujarat Mariners would only and only be settled with respect to their claims and not with respect to the share of the Applicant in the invoices. Moreover, requests to withdraw the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try Proceedings, then too the amounts along with interest therein are liable to be paid to the Applicant as per the invoices raised on the Corporate Debtor 6. We heard the Counsel and perused the material available on record. 6.1. We find that the Applicant has not filed any claim within the prescribed time under the Liquidation Process Regulations. However, the fact of supply of the Bunkers was within the knowledge of the Liquidator, who had contested the claim from the suppliers of the Applicant before Admiralty Court. It is not disputed that the Applicant had issued debit note levying interest on the delayed payment on 25.09.2019, and the claim was filed by the Applicant on 23.03.2019, however no interest was claimed in such claim form. Nonetheless, the Liquidator admitted the claim of Principal amount of the Applicant, after deducting therefrom the value of supplies made by Dushyant Patel and Gujarat Mariners settled before Admiralty Court. 6.2. We find that the fact of the suit having been filed by the suppliers of the Applicant was brought to its knowledge by the Resolution Professional, and it never bothered to take note of same. Due to pendency of the suits, the concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
