Tribunal upholds RP's actions, dismisses breach allegations, rules in favor of RP

The Tribunal upheld the RP's partial acceptance of the applicant's claim, finding it done after due consideration. The RP's actions were deemed in line with the law, and the applicant's allegations of breach of Consent Terms and security interest were dismissed due to incomplete documentation. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the RP, stating that the applicant had received substantial amounts per the Consent Terms, with only a small balance remaining. The RP's conduct during the CIRP was found to be fair and transparent, leading to the dismissal of the application against them.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Partial rejection of the applicant's claim by the Resolution Professional (RP).
2. Alleged breach of Consent Terms by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Security interest claimed by the applicant.
4. Allegations against the RP's conduct during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Partial Rejection of the Applicant's Claim by the RP:
The applicant sought to set aside the RP's decision to partially reject their claim and requested the claim be admitted in its entirety for Rs. 6,52,95,183/-. The applicant argued that the RP erroneously rejected the claim without proper consideration of the facts, including financial help provided to the Corporate Debtor and the subsequent breach of Consent Terms. The RP, however, contended that the claim was rejected after due verification of documents and the books of accounts, and that the CIRP was conducted fairly and transparently. The Tribunal found that the RP had rightfully accepted the applicant's claim partially after due consideration of the provided documents.

2. Alleged Breach of Consent Terms by the Corporate Debtor:
The applicant alleged that the Corporate Debtor breached the Consent Terms, which were meant to resolve the debt and disputes. The Consent Terms stipulated a total payment of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- for full and final settlement, but the Corporate Debtor failed to honor these terms. The RP argued that the Consent Terms were intended for full and final settlement of all disputes, and the applicant had already received substantial amounts as per these terms. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had received Rs. 10,00,00,000/- towards the principal and Rs. 1,00,00,000/- less TDS towards interest, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- only.

3. Security Interest Claimed by the Applicant:
The applicant sought to restrain the RP from creating any third-party interest in 15 flats, claiming security interest over them. The RP countered that as per the Consent Terms, the applicant had to relinquish all rights arising from various deeds and agreements upon receipt of the principal amount. The Tribunal observed that the documents submitted by the applicant to claim security interest were incomplete and lacked necessary signatures, dates, and stamp duty, making them inadmissible for determining the security interest.

4. Allegations Against the RP's Conduct During CIRP:
The applicant alleged that the RP acted unfairly and without proper application of mind. The RP defended his actions, stating that he followed the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and conducted the CIRP in a transparent manner. The Tribunal found that the RP acted in accordance with the Code and applicable rules, maintaining fairness, impartiality, and transparency throughout the process.

Findings:
The Tribunal concluded that the RP had rightfully partially accepted the applicant's claim after due consideration of the documents. The RP's actions were found to be in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the principles of law. The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that the applicant had already received substantial amounts as per the Consent Terms, and the remaining balance was only Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The allegations against the RP were deemed baseless and without merit.

Conclusion:
The Interlocutory Application numbered 500 of 2020 was dismissed, with the Tribunal affirming that the RP had acted correctly and there was no wrongdoing in deciding upon the applicant's claim.

---