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 Creditors' approval of the Resolution Plan. Despite delays caused by the Covid-19 lockdown, the RP was instructed to reconsider the claim due to prior awareness. A failed settlement agreement and RP's refusal based on time constraints were overridden by the Tribunal's emphasis on available documents and past judgments, leading to the directive for the RP to review and consider the Financial Creditor's claim.

---

---

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 COC

The 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 lockdown

The 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 Debtor

A 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 period

The 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 documents

The 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 precedents

The 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.

---