2021 (6) TMI 732 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal orders RP to reconsider late claim despite Covid delays

The Tribunal allowed the Financial Creditor's application, directing the Resolution Professional (RP) to admit the claim filed after the Committee of ... Seeking direction to RP to accept the claim filed by the Applicant/Financial Creditor - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, on the application filed by the applicant, the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was initiated and on perusal of the main application, it is found that while filing the application, the applicant had filed all the documents. As per the averments made in part-IV; column II of the main application, he had enclosed two separate builder-buyer agreements dated 17.04.2013 and 03.10.2013, money receipts, statements issued by the Corporate Debtor admitting the payment made by the financial creditor and bank statement. It is not the case of the applicant that for the first time, he has raised the claim before the RP after approval of the Resolution Plan by COC. Rather, it is the same applicant, on whose application, the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was initiated and the RP was appointed - the documents enclosed by the applicant along with the application filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 are the same documents which have also been filed along with the claim form. Therefore, the RP is well aware about the claim of the applicant and that is the reason, the applicant is shown as a creditor in the list of creditors prepared by the RP and which is uploaded on his website too. This fact has also not been denied by the RP during the course of his arguments. Here, it is not for the first time that the claim came to the knowledge of the RP or Resolution Applicant, rather all the documents as required to prove the claim by the creditor in class under Regulation 8A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 were already available with the RP - the RP is directed to consider the claim of the applicant - application disposed off. Issues:1. Consideration of claim by Financial Creditor after approval of Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors (COC) under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016.2. Delay in filing claim by Financial Creditor due to Covid-19 lockdown.3. Settlement agreement between Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor.4. RP's refusal to accept claim due to expiration of prescribed time period.5. RP's obligation to consider claim based on available documents.6. Comparison with previous judgments and legal precedents.Issue 1: Consideration of claim by Financial Creditor after approval of Resolution Plan by COCThe Financial Creditor filed an application under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking directions for the RP to accept the claim filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the COC. The Financial Creditor had booked two units in the project of the Corporate Debtor and made payments as per the instalment letters issued. Despite a settlement agreement that later failed, the Financial Creditor initiated CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). The Tribunal noted ambiguities in the Resolution Plan and cited a previous judgment directing acceptance of claims by real estate allottees even after COC approval, considering unintentional delays. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing the RP to admit the Financial Creditor's claim.Issue 2: Delay in filing claim by Financial Creditor due to Covid-19 lockdownThe Financial Creditor faced delays in filing its claim before the RP due to the Covid-19 outbreak, which hindered access to requisite documents. Upon the lifting of the lockdown, the Financial Creditor promptly submitted the claim to the RP. However, the RP rejected the claim citing the expiry of the prescribed time period. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the delay, including the RP's awareness of the claim through previously submitted documents, and directed the RP to reconsider the Financial Creditor's claim.Issue 3: Settlement agreement between Financial Creditor and Corporate DebtorA settlement agreement was reached between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor during the pendency of the application, which was recorded in an order by the NCLAT. However, the appeal by the Corporate Debtor was dismissed, leading to the failure of the settlement. This settlement history was considered by the Tribunal in evaluating the Financial Creditor's claim and directing the RP to review the claim submission.Issue 4: RP's refusal to accept claim due to expiration of prescribed time periodThe RP refused to accept the Financial Creditor's claim, stating that it was submitted after the expiration of the prescribed time period under the IBC and related regulations. The RP advised the Financial Creditor to approach the Adjudicating Authority due to the delay in claim submission. The Tribunal, however, noted that the RP was aware of the claim based on previously submitted documents and directed the RP to reconsider the claim in light of the available information.Issue 5: RP's obligation to consider claim based on available documentsThe Tribunal emphasized that the RP had sufficient information regarding the Financial Creditor's claim, as evidenced by the documents submitted with the original application and the subsequent claim form. The RP's acknowledgment of the Financial Creditor as a creditor, reflected in the list of creditors prepared by the RP, indicated awareness of the claim. The Tribunal directed the RP to consider the claim based on the available documents and inform the Resolution Applicant accordingly.Issue 6: Comparison with previous judgments and legal precedentsThe Tribunal referenced previous judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to distinguish the present case's circumstances. It highlighted that the Financial Creditor had initiated the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, and the RP was already familiar with the claim documents. Considering the unique facts of the case, the Tribunal directed the RP to review the Financial Creditor's claim, deviating from the circumstances of prior legal precedents.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, the relevant facts, and the legal reasoning behind the decision to direct the RP to consider the Financial Creditor's claim.