Tribunal remands case for fresh decision on claims supported by Arbitration Awards

The Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the Appellant's claims. It directed the Resolution Professional to reconsider the claims supported by the Arbitration Awards and ensure compliance with procedural requirements. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of reassessing the claims, even if initially rejected due to incomplete information, and highlighted that the Arbitration Awards constituted evidence of the debt owed, falling within the scope of financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. No costs order was issued.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Corporate Guarantee
2. Time-barred Claims
3. Admissibility of Claims during CIRP
4. Role of Arbitration Awards in Claim Adjudication
5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Corporate Guarantee:
The Tribunal examined whether the Corporate Guarantee provided by the Corporate Debtor (CD) was properly invoked by the Appellant. The Appellant, a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC), argued that the Guarantee was invoked through Loan Recall Notices cum Arbitration Notices issued on 07.03.2015. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had indeed invoked the Guarantee within the term of the Loan Agreement, and the Guarantee was a continuing one, enforceable until the dues were fully discharged. The Tribunal noted that the Guarantee obligated the CD to discharge the dues within seven days from the demand.

2. Time-barred Claims:
The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision that time-barred claims cannot be admitted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). However, the Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Dena Bank Vs. C.ShivaKumar Reddy, which allowed for the extension of the limitation period if there was an acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor before the expiry of the original limitation period. The Tribunal found that the claims were not time-barred as the Appellant had invoked the Guarantee well within the limitation period.

3. Admissibility of Claims during CIRP:
The Tribunal discussed the definitions of "claim," "financial creditor," and "financial debt" under Sections 3(6), 5(7), and 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). It concluded that the Appellant's claims were admissible as they were based on a financial debt, which included the amount due under the Corporate Guarantee. The Tribunal also emphasized that the claims were submitted within the stipulated timeframe following the initiation of CIRP.

4. Role of Arbitration Awards in Claim Adjudication:
The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had obtained Arbitration Awards against the Principal Borrowers, which were not set aside by any Competent Court. These Awards were presented as evidence of the debt owed. The Tribunal criticized the Resolution Professional (RP) for not considering these Awards when rejecting the claims. The Tribunal directed that the claims supported by Arbitration Awards should be reconsidered, highlighting that an Arbitration Award for payment of money falls within the ambit of a financial debt under the IBC.

5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The Tribunal observed that the Appellant had submitted its claims with the necessary documentation within the required timeframe. However, it was noted that the Appellant had not initially provided complete information, including the Arbitration Awards, to the RP. The Tribunal found this procedural lapse significant but not fatal to the Appellant's case. It directed the RP to reconsider the claims, taking into account the Arbitration Awards and other relevant documents.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision on the Appellant's claims. It directed the Resolution Professional to reconsider the claims based on the Arbitration Awards and proceed in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the claims should be reassessed even if they were initially rejected due to incomplete information. No order as to costs was made.

---