Tribunal Upholds Operational Creditor's Claim Despite Time Bar, Clarifies Procedural Requirements

The Tribunal directed the RP to admit the claim of an operational creditor, emphasizing the enforceability of the debt despite being time-barred. It upheld rejections of claims not supported by enforceable debts. Dismissed applications seeking RP removal, deferring adjudication to the IBBI. Clarified lack of jurisdiction over OTS proposals, affirming lender autonomy in such decisions. The Tribunal highlighted procedural requirements under the MSME Act and provided clear directives on claim admissibility.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of claims by operational creditors.
2. Entitlement of interest on delayed payments under MSME Act.
3. Validity of rejection of claims based on time-barred debts.
4. Removal and eligibility of the Resolution Professional (RP).
5. Consideration of One Time Settlement (OTS) proposals by the Committee of Creditors (COC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admission of Claims by Operational Creditors:
- IA No. 249/2020: The applicant, an operational creditor, filed a claim which was initially rejected by the RP on grounds of being time-barred. The Tribunal found that the applicant had obtained a decree and judgment against the corporate debtor, which was still enforceable. The rejection of the claim based on it being time-barred was deemed untenable. The Tribunal directed the RP to admit the claim.
- IA No. 667/2020: The applicant's claim was rejected on the grounds of being time-barred and submitted after the stipulated 90 days. The Tribunal held that the 90-day limit for submission of claims is directory, not mandatory, and since the claim was submitted before the approval of the resolution plan, it should not have been rejected for being late. However, the Tribunal upheld the rejection on the grounds of the claim being time-barred as it was not enforceable.

2. Entitlement of Interest on Delayed Payments under MSME Act:
- IA No. 659/2020: The applicant sought admission of interest on delayed payments under the MSME Act. The Tribunal noted that the MSME Act requires disputes to be referred to the MSME Facilitation Council for adjudication. Without an order from the MSME Council, the interest claim could not be admitted. The IA was dismissed.
- IA No. 707/2020: This IA was identical to IA No. 659/2020 and was dismissed on the same grounds.

3. Validity of Rejection of Claims Based on Time-Barred Debts:
- IA No. 249/2020: The Tribunal found the rejection of the claim on the grounds of being time-barred to be unsustainable as the claim was supported by a court decree still enforceable.
- IA No. 667/2020: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the claim on the grounds of being time-barred as the applicant failed to demonstrate enforceability of the debt.

4. Removal and Eligibility of the Resolution Professional (RP):
- IA Nos. 265/2020, 266/2020, 462/2020, and 466/2020: These applications sought the removal of the RP and actions against the RP and his counsel. The Tribunal noted that the CIRP process had reached finality with a resolution plan approved by the COC. Allegations against the RP were to be adjudicated by the IBBI. The Tribunal disposed of these IAs, allowing the applicant to take further steps based on IBBI's decision.

5. Consideration of One Time Settlement (OTS) Proposals by the Committee of Creditors (COC):
- IA No. 817/2020: The applicant sought reconsideration of an OTS proposal higher than the approved resolution plan. The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction over OTS proposals, which are within the purview of lenders. The IA was dismissed.
- IA No. 816/2020: This IA sought identical relief to IA No. 817/2020 and was dismissed for the same reasons.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided clear directives on the admissibility of claims, emphasizing the enforceability of debts and the procedural requirements under the MSME Act. It upheld the RP's actions where claims were time-barred and dismissed applications seeking removal of the RP, directing such matters to the IBBI. The Tribunal also clarified its lack of jurisdiction over OTS proposals, reinforcing the autonomy of lenders in such decisions.

---