Tribunal Dismisses Application Due to Timely Filing & Locus Standi. Regulation Not Applicable.

The tribunal found that the Form-D was filed within the required timeframe, the Applicant had locus standi to file the application, Regulation 21-A was not applicable, the joint consortium agreement was irrelevant, and the permission given by the Liquidator did not require interference. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the dismissal of I.A. No. 54/2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether Form-D is filed in time.
2. Whether the Applicant has locus standi to file this Application.
3. Whether Regulation 21-A IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 is applicable.
4. Whether the joint consortium executed on 14.03.2014 has any relevance to this case.
5. Whether the permission given by the Liquidator to Respondent No. 1 for realizing the schedule property needs interference.
6. To what result.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Whether Form-D is filed in time:

The tribunal examined whether Form-D was submitted within the stipulated period. The Applicant argued that Form-D was submitted on 18.10.2019, beyond the 30-day limit from the liquidation commencement date of 18.09.2019. The Respondents countered, citing Regulation 47 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which considers the liquidation commencement date as "zero day," making the last date for submission 18.10.2019. The tribunal accepted the trailing emails confirming submission on 18.10.2019 and concluded that Form-D was filed within the required timeframe. The tribunal dismissed the Applicant's contention regarding ante-dating, finding no evidence of conspiracy or fabrication.

II. Whether the Applicant has locus standi to file this Application:

The tribunal noted that the Applicant, an Ex-Director of the Corporate Debtor, would benefit if the asset formed part of the liquidation estate. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the Applicant had locus standi to file the application.

III. Whether Regulation 21-A IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 is applicable:

The tribunal analyzed Regulation 21-A(2), which mandates secured creditors to pay certain amounts within 90 days from the liquidation commencement date. The tribunal observed that this provision was introduced on 06.01.2020 and was not applicable to the present case. The tribunal further noted that Section 53(1)(b)(i) does not specify a time limit for depositing the workmen's dues and liquidation costs. Thus, the tribunal concluded that Respondent No. 1 was not required to comply with the amended Regulation 21-A(2) within the specified timeframe.

IV. Whether the joint consortium executed on 14.03.2014 has any relevance to this case:

The tribunal found that the consortium agreement dated 14.03.2014 pertained only to movable properties and not immovable properties. Additionally, the schedule property was acquired by the Corporate Debtor in 2016, postdating the consortium agreement. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the joint consortium executed on 14.03.2014 had no relevance to the present case.

V. Whether the permission given by the Liquidator to Respondent No. 1 for realizing the schedule property needs interference:

The tribunal discussed the Corporate Debtor's role as a Corporate Guarantor and the creation of security by way of mortgage. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020 (Laxmi Pat Surana vs. Union Bank of India & Another), which established that CIRP can be initiated against a Corporate Debtor for guarantees given for loans. The tribunal found that Respondent No. 1, as a Secured Creditor, was entitled to enforce its security interest. The tribunal dismissed the Applicant's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited, distinguishing the factual dissimilarities. The tribunal concluded that the permission given by the Liquidator to Respondent No. 1 did not require interference.

VI. To what result:

Based on the conclusions drawn under the above points, the tribunal dismissed the application. Accordingly, I.A. No. 54/2020 was dismissed.

---