Tribunal ruling: Rejected claim should have been admitted as contingent; delay condoned.

The tribunal ruled that the Resolution Professional's rejection of the claim, based on its disputed nature and pending arbitration, was not in line with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and legal precedents. The RP should have admitted the claim as contingent in the information memorandum. The tribunal allowed the claim partially, condoning the delay in submission and ensuring its consideration in the resolution process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the claim by the Resolution Professional.
2. Timeliness of the claim submission.
3. Role and powers of the Resolution Professional.
4. Impact of pending arbitration proceedings on the claim.
5. Legal precedents and their applicability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Claim by the Resolution Professional:
The Applicant, Ultra Tech Cement Limited, filed a claim of Rs. 35,58,96,601/- against the Corporate Debtor, which was rejected by the Resolution Professional (RP) on the grounds that the amount claimed was disputed and pending adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal and District Court. The Applicant argued that the RP has no adjudicating powers and should have admitted the claim, referencing the Swiss Ribbons Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. case, which states that the RP's role is administrative, not adjudicatory.

2. Timeliness of the Claim Submission:
The Respondent contended that the Applicant's claim was filed after the deadline of 07.11.2019, specifically on 12.11.2019. The Applicant argued that the delay was due to logistical issues and that the proof of claim was dispatched on 05.11.2020. The tribunal condoned the four-day delay in filing the claim, acknowledging the logistical challenges faced by the Applicant.

3. Role and Powers of the Resolution Professional:
The Applicant emphasized that the RP's role is to collect and collate claims, not to adjudicate them. This was supported by the Supreme Court judgment in the Essar Steel India Limited case, which clarified that the RP's function is administrative. The tribunal agreed that the RP should have admitted the claim for notional value, ensuring all present and future claims are accounted for in the resolution plan.

4. Impact of Pending Arbitration Proceedings on the Claim:
The Respondent rejected the claim due to its disputed nature and pending arbitration. The Applicant argued that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC halted the arbitration proceedings, and thus the claim should still be admitted. The tribunal noted that the pending arbitration should not prevent the claim's admission, as per Section 3(6) of the IBC, which defines a claim as a right to payment, whether disputed or undisputed. The tribunal ruled that the RP should have declared the claim as contingent in the information memorandum.

5. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability:
The Applicant relied on several legal precedents, including the Swiss Ribbons case, the Essar Steel case, and the State of Haryana vs. Uttam Strips Ltd. case. These cases collectively established that the RP's role is not to adjudicate claims but to ensure all claims are accounted for in the resolution plan. The tribunal found these precedents applicable and ruled that the RP's rejection of the claim was contrary to the IBC's provisions and the judicial precedents.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the RP's rejection of the claim due to its disputed nature and pending arbitration was not in accordance with the IBC and judicial precedents. The RP should have admitted the claim as contingent in the information memorandum. The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the claim and partly allowed the application, ensuring the claim is considered in the resolution process.

---