Tribunal rejects application for claim as secured creditor due to lack of documentation.

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's application seeking directions against the Resolution Professional to accept its proof of claim and treat it as a secured financial creditor. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to substantiate its claim and highlighted that the Applicant had alternative recourse through recovery certificates obtained from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The application was rejected, and the order was communicated to the parties involved and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of proof of claim by the Resolution Professional.
2. Treatment of the Applicant as a secured financial creditor.
3. Reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors.
4. Utilization of refunded amounts to home buyers.
5. Submission and acknowledgment of claim documents.
6. Jurisdiction and timing of the application post-approval of the Resolution Plan.
7. Duplication of claims and recovery certificates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acceptance of Proof of Claim by the Resolution Professional:
The Applicant, Axis Bank Limited, filed an application seeking directions against the Resolution Professional (RP) of M/s Subhkamana Buildtech Private Limited to accept its proof of claim and treat it as a secured financial creditor. The Applicant submitted its claim on December 31, 2018, well before the deadline of January 12, 2019. Despite multiple reminders, the IRP and subsequently the RP did not acknowledge the claim, citing the non-receipt of supporting documents.

2. Treatment of the Applicant as a Secured Financial Creditor:
The Applicant argued that it should be treated as a secured financial creditor due to the tripartite agreements with the home buyers and the Corporate Debtor, which included indemnification, lien, and subrogation clauses. The RP, however, maintained that the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to substantiate its claim, and therefore, it could not be admitted.

3. Reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors:
The Applicant requested the Tribunal to direct the RP to reconstitute the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to include the Applicant as a secured financial creditor. The RP countered that the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the CoC on October 17, 2019, and the application was moved post-approval, making it without jurisdiction.

4. Utilization of Refunded Amounts to Home Buyers:
The Applicant sought a directive that any refunded amounts to home buyers should first be used to pay the outstanding dues to the Applicant. The RP argued that the claims of the home buyers had already been admitted and included in the Resolution Plan, and any additional claim by the Applicant would result in duplication.

5. Submission and Acknowledgment of Claim Documents:
The Applicant submitted its claim electronically, as required by the public announcements. However, the RP requested hard copies, which the Applicant attempted to submit but were refused by the IRP. The RP later stated that the claim was never received, and the Applicant did not act upon its rights under the tripartite agreements.

6. Jurisdiction and Timing of the Application Post-Approval of the Resolution Plan:
The RP cited the Supreme Court's decision in "Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta," which held that no undecided claims could be entertained after the approval of a Resolution Plan. This principle was reiterated in subsequent judgments, emphasizing that a successful resolution applicant should not face undecided claims post-approval.

7. Duplication of Claims and Recovery Certificates:
The Applicant had obtained recovery certificates from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against the Corporate Debtor and respective home buyers. The RP argued that admitting the Applicant's claim would result in duplication, as the home buyers' claims had already been included in the Resolution Plan.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found merit in the RP's arguments, noting that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support its claim. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Applicant had alternative recourse through the DRT recovery certificates. Consequently, the application was rejected, and the order was communicated to the Applicant, Respondent, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).

---