Tribunal upholds rejection of late claim under Insolvency Code despite pandemic impact

The tribunal dismissed the application seeking various reliefs under section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The application was rejected by the Resolution Professional (RP) due to delay in filing the claim beyond the specified deadline, as per the amended provision of regulation 12(2) of the IBBI Regulations. Despite arguments regarding the impact of the pandemic-induced lockdown, the tribunal found the claim untimely even after excluding the lockdown period. The tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the regulation and upheld the RP's decision to reject the claim.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application filed under section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking various reliefs.
2. Delay in filing the claim by the applicant.
3. Interpretation of regulation 12(2) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
4. Impact of lockdown due to the pandemic on the filing timeline.
5. Maintainability of the application and rejection by the RP.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought relief under section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, requesting the tribunal to allow the application, instruct the RP to consider the claim without delay, admit the claim, and halt the resolution plan process until the claim is admitted. The applicant cited missed publication, lockdown impact, and lack of response from the corporate debtor as reasons for the delay in filing the claim.

2. The RP contended that the application was filed to mislead the tribunal and delay proceedings. The RP rejected the claim citing delay and stated that the application was not maintainable under section 60 of the IBC due to the delay in filing the claim after the specified deadline of February 12, 2020.

3. The tribunal analyzed regulation 12(2) of the IBBI Regulations, noting the amendment that changed the timeline for filing claims. The tribunal observed that the claim was not submitted within 90 days of the insolvency commencement date, as required by the amended regulation. The tribunal differentiated between the old and new provisions and concluded that the claim was not filed within the stipulated timeline.

4. The applicant argued that the regulation 12(2) is directory, not mandatory, based on previous tribunal decisions. However, the tribunal found that the previous orders did not discuss the amended provision of regulation 12(2) and considered those orders as per incuriam. The tribunal referenced a specific case where the amended provision was discussed, supporting the mandatory nature of the regulation.

5. Despite the applicant's argument regarding the pandemic-induced lockdown affecting the filing timeline, the tribunal calculated the claim submission date and found it delayed even after excluding the lockdown period. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the applicant's prayer, stating that the claim was not acceptable under regulation 12(2) and dismissed the application.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the timelines set by the regulations and rejecting the claim due to the delay in submission, as per the amended provision of regulation 12(2).

---