2019 (10) TMI 1360 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal upholds Liquidator's rejection of claims due to lack of documentation

The Tribunal upheld the Liquidator's rejection of claims by M/s. FL Smidth Private Limited during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and ... Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - contention of the learned counsel for Liquidator that Applicant claimed money in respect of goods which are said to have been made ready for despatch but they were not delivered - HELD THAT:- It is true goods said to have been manufactured were not actually delivered to Corporate Debtor. It is contended that goods were ready but Corporate Debtor failed to take delivery. 80% of the contract price was required to be paid on pro-rata basis on submission of monthly invoices/bills as per the approved billing break-up, on completion of work duly certified by Corporate Debtor. There were no invoices available in the records of Corporate Debtor. Even appellant also did not produce the invoices in support of its claim that part of material was prepared and fit for delivery. No tax invoices raised. Therefore, Liquidator was not in a position to admit the claim. When claim and counter claims are involved, Liquidator cannot be decided the same. The Liquidator has rightly rejected the claim and no ground to interfere. Application dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Rejection of claim by the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional during CIRP.2. Rejection of claim by the Liquidator during liquidation.3. Verification and admissibility of claims related to goods ready for dispatch but not delivered.4. Verification and admissibility of claims related to work-in-progress and goods under manufacturing.5. Admissibility of GST-related claims without tax invoices.6. Adjudicatory powers and duties of the Liquidator.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Claim by Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional during CIRP:The Applicant, M/s. FL Smidth Private Limited, challenged the rejection of its claim by the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The claim was rejected due to the absence of supporting documents and invoices.2. Rejection of Claim by the Liquidator during Liquidation:When the Corporate Debtor went into liquidation, the Applicant filed its claim again, which was also rejected by the Liquidator. The Applicant then filed IA 56/2019 under Section 42 of the IBC challenging the Liquidator's rejection. The Liquidator rejected the claim on several grounds, including the lack of invoices and supporting documents for the goods allegedly ready for dispatch and work-in-progress.3. Verification and Admissibility of Claims Related to Goods Ready for Dispatch but Not Delivered:The Applicant claimed that goods worth Rs. 32,34,00,000 were ready for dispatch but not delivered due to the Corporate Debtor's failure to issue the Material Dispatch Clearance Certificate (MDCC). The Liquidator rejected this claim, stating that only dispatched material could be billed to the Corporate Debtor and that there were no invoices or documents establishing liability as of 27.08.2018.4. Verification and Admissibility of Claims Related to Work-in-Progress and Goods Under Manufacturing:The Applicant also claimed amounts for goods under manufacturing and work-in-progress. The Liquidator rejected these claims, stating that there was no delivery of goods to the Corporate Debtor and no supporting documents or invoices were provided. The Liquidator emphasized that the contract required invoices to be raised on a pro-rata and monthly basis, and no such invoices were available.5. Admissibility of GST-Related Claims Without Tax Invoices:The Applicant's claim for GST payments was also rejected by the Liquidator due to the absence of GST invoices. The Liquidator maintained that without proper tax invoices, the claim could not be admitted.6. Adjudicatory Powers and Duties of the Liquidator:The Applicant argued that the Liquidator has quasi-judicial powers under Section 40 of the IBC and should have provided an opportunity for a personal hearing before rejecting the claim. The Liquidator, however, contended that his role was limited to verifying claims based on available information and that he was not required to adjudicate disputes between the Corporate Debtor and creditors. The Tribunal held that the Liquidator acted within his powers and provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the claims.Conclusion:The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Liquidator's decision and dismissed both IA 204/2018 and IA 56/2019. The Liquidator's rejection of the claims was upheld due to the lack of supporting documents, invoices, and the presence of counterclaims. The Tribunal emphasized that disputes over claims should be settled in a Civil Court.