Enhancement claim dismissed post-plan approval; Tribunal clarifies Resolution Professional's role.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application to enhance the claim as the Resolution Plan had been approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the application for enhancement was not maintainable after plan approval. The Tribunal clarified the Resolution Professional's role in determining claims for the Committee of Creditors and dismissed the appeal due to the delay in raising the issue, emphasizing seeking relief from the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for enhancing claim by Resolution Professional
2. Jurisdiction of Resolution Professional to reject claim
3. Applicability of previous judgments on Resolution Professional's jurisdiction

Issue 1: Rejection of application for enhancing claim by Resolution Professional
The case involved the 'Bank of Baroda' as the Financial Creditor filing a claim during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which was initially allowed by the Resolution Professional. Subsequently, the Bank of Baroda filed an application to enhance the claim after 250 days, which was not entertained by the Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application as the Resolution Plan had already been approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the application for enhancement was not maintainable after the plan had been approved.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Resolution Professional to reject claim
The Appellant contended that the Revision of Claim was based on record and the Resolution Professional failed to consider it. The Appellant argued that the Resolution Professional had no jurisdiction to reject the claim. The Appellate Tribunal referred to a previous judgment and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to clarify that the Resolution Professional's role was to determine the claim for the constitution of the Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal emphasized that the Resolution Professional's decision did not amount to rejection of the claim, and the Appellant, being a member of the Committee of Creditors, did not raise the issue promptly. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that no relief could be granted at that stage.

Issue 3: Applicability of previous judgments on Resolution Professional's jurisdiction
The Appellant cited a previous judgment and a Supreme Court case to argue about the Resolution Professional's jurisdiction to decide the claim. The Tribunal acknowledged the precedents but clarified that such a question was not necessary to decide in the present appeal since the Resolution Plan had already been approved. The Tribunal highlighted that the Resolution Professional's decision was for the constitution of the Committee of Creditors and that the Appellant's delay in raising the issue hindered granting any relief. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant could seek appropriate relief from the appropriate forum despite the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind the decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.

---