IBC Application Dismissed for Procedural Non-Compliance

The Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the IBC, 2016. It highlighted that claims must be filed separately for the CIRP and Liquidation stages, and emphasized the time-bound nature of the process. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's caution against judicial interference in the IBC framework and stressed the necessity of complying with the specified time frames for submitting claims during the Liquidation process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the claims submitted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) should be treated as claims submitted during the Liquidation process.
2. Whether the Applicants should be considered as part of the Scheme of the Corporate Debtor under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 and relevant regulations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of Claims Submitted During CIRP as Claims During Liquidation Process:
The Applicants, who are operational creditors, submitted their claims during the CIRP but failed to submit them during the Liquidation process. The Tribunal noted that the provisions of the IBC, 2016 mandate that claimants must submit their claims to the Liquidator in a specified form and manner, with supporting documents. The Liquidator is required to verify these claims within a stipulated time frame. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIRP and Liquidation processes are distinct stages, and claims must be filed separately for each stage. The Applicants' argument that claims filed during the CIRP should be treated as claims during the Liquidation process was rejected. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., which cautioned against judicial interference in the IBC framework, underscoring that the IBC is a carefully considered legislation designed to overhaul the insolvency regime in India.

2. Consideration of Applicants as Part of the Scheme Under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013:
The Tribunal noted that the Applicants had requested to be considered as part of the Scheme of the Corporate Debtor under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. However, the Liquidator's application under Section 230 was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds of maintainability, as the scheme proponents were ineligible under Section 29A of the IBC, 2016. The Tribunal reiterated that the Applicants did not submit their claims during the Liquidation process, which is a mandatory requirement under the IBC, 2016. The Tribunal also highlighted that Regulation 19(4) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which allows the Liquidator to admit claims of workmen and employees based on the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor, does not extend to operational creditors like the Applicants.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under IBC, 2016:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the IBC, 2016. The Applicants failed to submit their claims during the Liquidation process within the stipulated time frame. The Tribunal noted that the IBC treats the CIRP and Liquidation as separate stages, and claims must be filed separately for each stage. The Tribunal dismissed the Applicants' plea that they were unaware of the procedural requirements, stating that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse. The Tribunal also referenced the Hon'ble NCLAT's decision in The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Audit), Raichur vs. Surana Industries Ltd., which underscored the time-bound nature of the Liquidation process and the Liquidator's obligation to complete the process within one year.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that the IBC, 2016 is a time-bound process, and the Liquidator is required to complete the Liquidation process within a specified period. The Tribunal reiterated that claims must be filed separately for the CIRP and Liquidation stages, and the mere entry of debt in the books of accounts is not sufficient for the claims to be admitted. The Tribunal also highlighted the Supreme Court's principle that "there is no equity about limitation," underscoring the importance of adhering to the time limits prescribed under the IBC, 2016.

---