2020 (10) TMI 265 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal orders RP to justify claim rejections, dismisses belated Resolution Plan application. Consortium partner replacement request withdrawn.

Paramjit Singh Saini and Ors. Versus Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal directed the Resolution Professional (RP) to provide a reasoned order regarding the verification of outstanding claims, emphasizing the duty ... Direction against the RP to pass a reasoned order regarding verification of outstanding claims - HELD THAT:- It is the bounden duty of the RP to give reasons when claim has been rejected, for there being no proof reflecting the RP has given reasons for rejection of the part of the claim of the Applicant herein, the RP is hereby directed either to admit the claim or to give reasons as to why the balance part of the claim of the Applicant is not admissible within three days hereof - Application allowed. Approval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of this Applicant that its Resolution Plan has been rejected by the RP in violation of the procedure laid down under the Code. Interestingly, the plan has been approved unanimously with 100 % voting share of CoC which is much above the statutory requirement of 66 % in terms of Section 30(4) of the Code. The right of approval of a plan lies within the domain of CoC. Now some of the homebuyers filed an application supporting this Resolution Plan. Apart from this, Applicant has also filed a comparative chart showing that if its Resolution Plan has been considered, it will maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor. It cannot become a sole criteria to consider of the Resolution Plan. It is one of the component to be considered provided more than one claim has been placed before the CoC then the CoC will consider the Resolution Plan that maximize the value of the Corporate Debtor. It is not that the Plan that comes after four months with added value is to be treated as a plan for maximization the value of the Corporate Debtor, because if this Bench considers such plan after four months, tomorrow if somebody else comes with more value than instead of considering this plan that plan has to be considered. This Bench is bound by the procedure as set out under the Code, once it is in compliance of the procedure this Bench has jurisdiction to see as to whether the plan placed before this Bench is in confirmation with Section 30(2) of the IBC or not - there are no merit in this application - application dismissed. Issues involved:1. Direction against the RP for a reasoned order regarding verification of outstanding claims.2. Application seeking direction for submission of a new Resolution Plan after the approval of an existing plan.3. Application for replacement of a consortium partner for a Resolution Plan.4. RP directed to file a reply for a new application.Issue 1:The Tribunal addressed an application by a company seeking a direction against the Resolution Professional (RP) to provide a reasoned order regarding the verification of outstanding claims. The company had claimed a certain amount, part of which was allowed by the RP without specifying reasons for rejecting the remaining portion. The Tribunal emphasized the RP's duty to provide reasons for claim rejections. As no proof was presented by the RP reflecting reasons for rejection, the Tribunal directed the RP to either admit the claim or provide reasons for rejecting the balance part within three days.Issue 2:In another application, a company sought to file a new Resolution Plan after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had already approved a different plan. The company had failed to meet the eligibility criteria within the stipulated timeline for submitting an Expression of Interest. Despite the CoC's unanimous approval of the existing plan, the company requested an opportunity to submit a new plan, citing a consortium agreement with another company. The Tribunal noted that the company's belated application, after the expiry of the timeline, was against the spirit of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to timelines, the Tribunal dismissed the application as misconceived.Issue 3:A subsequent application was filed by the same company to replace a consortium partner for the Resolution Plan. However, following the dismissal of the previous application, the company sought withdrawal of the new application for partner replacement. The Tribunal dismissed the application as withdrawn.Issue 4:Lastly, an application was made, and the RP accepted notice, with directions for the RP to file a reply before the next hearing date, scheduled for 05.03.2020.This comprehensive analysis covers the Tribunal's rulings on various applications related to outstanding claims verification, submission of new Resolution Plans, consortium partner replacements, and the RP's obligation to respond to new applications.