Insolvency claim admission, limitation exclusion under relief undertaking law, and Resolution Professional replacement require statutory proof and voting thresholds.

Claim admission in insolvency cannot be rejected merely because one supporting loan or security document is insufficiently stamped if the debt is otherwise established by contemporaneous records, assignments, registration data, financial statements and admissions; the separate Stamp Act proceedings do not undo verification already made in the CIRP. Limitation for a section 7 application is three years under Article 137, and the period during which proceedings were statutorily barred under the Rajasthan Relief Undertakings Act is excluded from computation, making the application timely. Replacement of the Resolution Professional requires a Committee of Creditors resolution backed by the statutory voting threshold, so a creditor with only 4% voting share cannot secure substitution without that procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the admission of the financial creditors' claims in the insolvency process could be rejected on the ground that some underlying loan and security documents were insufficiently stamped under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. (ii) Whether the claims and the section 7 application were barred by limitation, having regard to the Rajasthan Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (iii) Whether the Resolution Professional could be substituted at the instance of a creditor holding only 4% voting share in the Committee of Creditors.

Issue (i): Whether the admission of the financial creditors' claims in the insolvency process could be rejected on the ground that some underlying loan and security documents were insufficiently stamped under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998.

Analysis: The claim records included not only the impugned loan agreement but also several other contemporaneous and subsequent documents, such as assignment deeds, registration records, CERSAI material, audited financial statements, and admissions in pleadings, all of which supported the existence of the debt. The proceedings under the Stamp Act were treated as separate and independent from the insolvency process. The Tribunal held that the existence of a debt can be established by different documents and means, and that the later stamp-duty proceedings did not invalidate the earlier admission and verification of claims in the CIRP.

Conclusion: The objection based on insufficient stamp duty was rejected and the claims could not be disallowed on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the claims and the section 7 application were barred by limitation, having regard to the Rajasthan Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The limitation period for a section 7 application was held to be three years under Article 137. The Corporate Debtor had remained a notified relief undertaking for a substantial period, and section 4(1)(b) and section 4(2) of the 1961 Act operated to exclude the period during which legal proceedings could not be commenced or continued. The Tribunal held that this statutory exclusion applied to the computation of limitation under the Limitation Act for insolvency proceedings as well, and that the section 7 application was filed within time when the excluded period was given effect.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the claims were held to be within time.

Issue (iii): Whether the Resolution Professional could be substituted at the instance of a creditor holding only 4% voting share in the Committee of Creditors.

Analysis: Section 27(2) requires a resolution of the Committee of Creditors supported by sixty-six per cent of voting shares for replacement of the Resolution Professional. No such resolution had been passed, and the factual situation was unlike cases where the Resolution Professional had refused to convene the meeting despite a request. The Tribunal declined to invoke inherent powers to bypass the statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The request for substitution of the Resolution Professional was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned orders and left the insolvency process and the admitted claims undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In insolvency proceedings, claim admission cannot be negated merely because one supporting document is insufficiently stamped if the debt is otherwise established by multiple admissible materials, and limitation may be computed with exclusion of the statutory period during which proceedings were barred under a relief undertaking notification.

---