TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Late claim rejected in insolvency appeal due to missed deadline, highlighting need for procedural compliance</h1> <h3>Peecon Developer Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bimal Agrawal RP of Dagcon (India) Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Peecon Developer Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bimal Agrawal RP of Dagcon (India) Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Application for direction to accept claims submitted by the Appellant.2. Dismissal of the Application on the ground of limitation.3. Appeal against rejection of claim based on delay.4. Consideration of delay in filing claim and impact on the CIRP process.Analysis:1. The Appellant, a Financial Creditor, filed an Application under Section 60(5) of IBC seeking direction to accept claims submitted on 12.12.2020, mistakenly typed as a Financial Creditor instead of an Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Application citing limitation issues. The Appellant argued that the Supreme Court had extended the limitation period due to the pandemic, referencing a previous case where rejection based on delay was deemed unsustainable.2. The Appellant had paid a significant sum in the past, initiated insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, but was unaware of the CIRP commencement. Despite filing the claim late, the Appellant contended that the rejection was unfair, especially given the Supreme Court's ruling on limitation extensions. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized the time-bound nature of CIRP and the potential unfairness to other creditors if the Appellant's claim was accepted belatedly.3. The Adjudicating Authority determined that allowing the Appellant's claim at a late stage would disrupt the CIRP process and disadvantage other creditors. The dismissal of the Application was upheld, emphasizing the importance of adhering to timelines in insolvency proceedings to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the resolution process.4. The Tribunal concurred with the dismissal of the Application, finding no grounds for admitting the Appeal. Consequently, the Appeal was summarily dismissed without further notice to the opposing party, highlighting the significance of procedural compliance and adherence to timelines in insolvency matters to uphold the objectives of the Code and ensure fairness among creditors.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
