Tribunal Upholds Decision on Claim Dispute in CIRP Appeal

The Tribunal upheld the RP's decision to partially reject the appellant's claim, reducing it to Rs.1 crore, finding no procedural unfairness in the CIRP. The Corporate Debtor's alleged breach of Consent Terms was partially upheld, with the appellant receiving Rs.10 crores but disputing the non-payment of Rs.2 crores. The appellant's claim of security interest in 15 flats was denied as the principal amount had been paid. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's decision approving the resolution plan and rejecting the appellant's claims of unfairness.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Partial rejection of the appellant's claim by the Resolution Professional (RP).
2. Alleged breach of Consent Terms by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Validity and enforceability of security interests claimed by the appellant.
4. Procedural fairness and transparency in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) conducted by the RP.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Partial Rejection of the Appellant's Claim by the RP
The appellant sought to set aside the decision of the RP, who had partially rejected the appellant's claim and directed the RP to admit the claim in its entirety to the tune of Rs.6,52,95,183/-. The RP had accepted only Rs.1 crore of the appellant's claim, citing that the remaining amount was not substantiated. The Tribunal found that the RP had acted in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and had followed due process in verifying the claims. The RP had considered the documents submitted, including the Corporate Debtor's balance sheet, and concluded that the appellant's claim beyond Rs.1 crore was unreasonable and baseless.

2. Alleged Breach of Consent Terms by the Corporate Debtor
The appellant argued that the Corporate Debtor had breached the Consent Terms by failing to pay Rs.2 crores as agreed. The Consent Terms, dated 19.07.2018, stipulated the payment of Rs.10 crores towards the principal amount and Rs.2 crores towards interest. The appellant received Rs.10 crores but alleged non-payment of the remaining Rs.2 crores. The Tribunal noted that Rs.90 lakhs had been paid after deducting Rs.10 lakhs as TDS, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs.1 crore. The Tribunal found that the RP had correctly accepted the appellant's claim of Rs.1 crore, as the appellant had already received substantial payments.

3. Validity and Enforceability of Security Interests Claimed by the Appellant
The appellant sought to restrain the RP from creating any third-party interest in 15 flats, claiming a security interest in these properties. The Tribunal found that the appellant had received the principal amount of Rs.10 crores, which, according to Clause 1(b) of the Consent Terms, required the appellant to relinquish all rights arising out of the security documents. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was barred from claiming any security interest in the 15 flats, as the principal amount had been paid.

4. Procedural Fairness and Transparency in the CIRP Conducted by the RP
The appellant alleged that the RP had not followed procedures established by law and principles of fairness, impartiality, and transparency in conducting the CIRP. The Tribunal found no merit in these allegations, noting that the RP had acted in accordance with the IBC and applicable rules. The RP had transparently and fairly conducted the CIRP, and the appellant's claims were duly considered and verified.

Conclusion
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority. The RP had correctly reduced the appellant's claim to Rs.1 crore, and the appellant's allegations of procedural unfairness were unfounded. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, which had approved the resolution plan and dismissed the appellant's interlocutory application.

---