2021 (12) TMI 154 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appellate Tribunal upholds decision dismissing challenge to NCLT order on lack of credible evidence in CIRP

Shabeena Arshad & Another Versus Nilesh Sharma, RP of Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd.

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to dismiss the application challenging the order of dismissal by the National Company ... Collection of all information relating to the assets, finances and operations of the corporate debtor for determining the financial position of the corporate debtor - seeking to receive and collate all the claims submitted by creditors to him, pursuant to the public announcement made under Sections 13 and 15 - HELD THAT:- In view of the facts that the 'Adjudicating Authority' had observed in the impugned order at paragraph 8 that the applicant himself had admitted the application that the Ex-directors were fraudulent and in fact, the Payments claimed to be made by the Petitioners/Appellants for one Mr. Rohit were not supported with any of the entries in the 'Books of Account' of the Corporate Debtor then I.A. No. 2771 of 2020 filed by the Applicants/Appellants seeking issuance of direction to the Resolution Professional of the Corporate debtor accept the claim in full filed by the Applicants is not maintainable and in fact the Adjudicating Authority had pertinently proceeded to observe in the impugned order that RP had admitted the claim of ₹ 15,75,279/- after allowing interest 8% on ₹ 15,29,057/- which was rightly calculated, which was not arbitrary in nature and no direction can be issued to the Resolution Professional etc. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:- Dismissal of application seeking direction to Resolution Professional- Admissibility of claims in Corporate Insolvency Resolution ProcessAnalysis:The Appellants filed CA (AT) (Ins) No. 581 of 2021 challenging the order of dismissal dated 02.03.2021 by the National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the petitioner had only paid a specific amount to the Corporate Debtor, supported by credible evidence. The Authority noted that the payments claimed were not supported by the Corporate Debtor's accounts and that the ex-directors were fraudulent. The Adjudicating Authority correctly dismissed the application as the Resolution Professional had already admitted a claim after due calculation, which was not arbitrary. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on the fact that the claims were not maintainable due to lack of supporting evidence in the Corporate Debtor's accounts.Furthermore, the duties of the Interim Resolution Professional as per Section 18 of the I & B Code 2016 were highlighted, emphasizing the collection of information on the corporate debtor's assets, finances, and operations. The Professional is required to receive and collate all claims submitted by creditors and verify entries in the Corporate Debtor's books of accounts. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was in line with these statutory duties, ensuring proper handling of claims during the insolvency resolution process.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to dismiss the application, stating that it lacked merit. The dismissal of CA (AT) (Ins) No. 581 of 2021 was confirmed, with no costs imposed, and all related Interlocutory Applications were closed. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory duties and providing credible evidence to support claims during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.