Tribunal dismisses late claim application, emphasizing timely creditor filings

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's Application seeking relief for a delay in submitting proof of claim against the Corporate Debtor, enlistment as an Operational Creditor, and recalling an order. The Tribunal emphasized that creditors must file claims within the stipulated period after public announcement, noting the Applicant's filing post-Resolution Plan approval. The Tribunal ruled that inherent powers cannot override express provisions of the law, ultimately deeming the Application not maintainable due to significant delay and post-Resolution Plan filing. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in submitting proof of claim, acceptance of claim against Corporate Debtor, recall of order, unauthorized clauses in Resolution Plan.

Analysis:
1. The Applicant filed an Application seeking relief for condoning a delay of 1111 days in submitting proof of claim against the Corporate Debtor, enlistment as an Operational Creditor, and recalling an order. The Applicant claimed that the Resolution Professional failed to disclose information, resulting in the delay.

2. The Applicant highlighted that Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificates were issued to the Corporate Debtor, obligating them to inform and provide documents to the Applicant regarding export obligations. Failure to comply led to a demand for customs duty, supported by notices and an Order-in-Original.

3. The Applicant faced resistance from the Resolution Professional regarding claim acceptance due to the timing of filing post Resolution Plan approval. The claim amount totaled Rs. 124,17,32,525, filed after the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period.

4. The Tribunal examined the duties of the Resolution Professional under Section 18 of the Code, emphasizing that creditors are responsible for filing claims within the stipulated period after public announcement. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant filed the claim post-Resolution Plan approval.

5. The Applicant sought to invoke inherent powers of the Tribunal under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. However, the Respondent argued that inherent powers cannot override express provisions of the law, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

6. Rulings from NCLT and NCLAT were referenced by both parties to support their arguments regarding the acceptance of claims post-Resolution Plan approval. The Respondent contended that such admissions are impermissible and illegal.

7. After considering all arguments and legal provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Application was not maintainable and rejected it, emphasizing that the claim was filed after a significant delay and post-Resolution Plan approval. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

---