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>Tribunal corrects RP's error in claim processing, directs verification using documents. Role clarified.</h1> <h3>Anurag Sachdeva Versus Kashi Viswanathan Sivaraman</h3> Anurag Sachdeva Versus Kashi Viswanathan Sivaraman - TMI Issues Involved:1. Acceptance of the complete claim of the applicant by the Resolution Professional (RP).2. Verification and genuineness of the claim amounting to Rs. 7,00,000 paid in cash.3. Adjudicatory powers of the Resolution Professional.4. Impact of the approved resolution plan on pending claims.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Acceptance of the complete claim of the applicant by the Resolution Professional (RP):The applicant filed a petition under Section 60(5)(b) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking directions for the RP to accept the complete claim of Rs. 9,00,000. The RP had admitted only Rs. 2,00,000 and provisionally accepted Rs. 7,00,000, subject to verification. The applicant argued that the RP had failed to collate the claims based on the available proofs, causing irreparable loss.2. Verification and genuineness of the claim amounting to Rs. 7,00,000 paid in cash:The RP contended that the Rs. 7,00,000 paid in cash could not be verified due to the absence of the Corporate Debtor's books of accounts. The applicant provided photocopies of money receipts and bank statements showing cash withdrawals, but the RP was apprehensive about the genuineness of these receipts. The tribunal noted that the RP had not conclusively determined the receipts to be forged and that the applicant had provided sufficient secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Regulation 8A(2) of the IBBI Corporate Persons Regulations.3. Adjudicatory powers of the Resolution Professional:The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Ors' and the NCLAT's decision in 'Navneet Kumar Gupta vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited', which clarified that the RP has administrative, not quasi-judicial, powers. The RP's role is to collate claims based on available proofs, not to adjudicate them. The tribunal found that the RP had exceeded his duty by not finalizing the claim based on an apprehension of forgery.4. Impact of the approved resolution plan on pending claims:The RP argued that the resolution plan approved by the CoC extinguished all undecided claims and that the applicant could substantiate his claim within 60 days from the approval date. The tribunal noted that the applicant had filed the claim within the prescribed time and that the RP had provisionally accepted it. Therefore, the resolution applicant must have been aware of the pending verification. The tribunal distinguished the current case from other cases cited by the RP, where claims were raised after the approval of the resolution plan.Conclusion:The tribunal concluded that the RP had erred in law by not finalizing the applicant's claim based on the provided documents. The RP was directed to verify the claim of Rs. 9,00,000 based on the money receipts and bank statements and inform the resolution applicant accordingly. The application was disposed of with these directions.
TaxTMI 