2022 (9) TMI 487 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Claim Dispute in CIRP Appeal

Techengg Project Services & Equipments (I) Pvt Ltd Versus Jayesh Sanghrajka & Anr

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. ... Seeking to set aside the decision of the RP partially rejecting the claim of the applicant and direct him to admit the claim of applicant in entirety - direction to follow the principles of fairness, impartiality and transparency in the conduct of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - seeking to restraint RP from creating any third party interest - HELD THAT:- It is evident, on examination of the impugned order, that there is no dispute regarding payment of amount which is Rs.10 crores which was claimed by the appellant. The said amount was already received on the date of the agreement i.e. 19.07.2018 and on the basis of the said agreement earlier petition filed by the appellant was withdrawn. So far as amount of Rs.1 crore is concerned, the impugned order categorically reflects that after deducting Rs.10 lakhs as TDS, Rs.90 lakhs was already paid to the appellant. Only for remaining amount of Rs.1 crore, two cheques of Rs.50 lakhs each were issued. Dispute is only to the said amount. On examination of the claim the RP has also accepted regarding claim of the appellant of Rs. 1 crore. In view of the fact that the amount of Rs.10 crore was received by the appellant on 19.07.2018 and thereafter Rs.90 lacs after deducting Rs.10 lacs as TDS, it is opined that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly approved the decision of Resolution Professional by reducing appellants’ claim to Rs.1 crore only. There was no reason for the Adjudicating Authority to pass a different order. Moreover there is no dispute on approval of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved1. 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 Analysis1. Partial Rejection of the Appellant's Claim by the RPThe 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 DebtorThe 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 AppellantThe 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 RPThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.