Appeal Dismissed in Creditor-Liquidator Dispute Over CIRP Claim Timing

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Operational Creditor seeking payment from the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. The appeal was based on the interpretation of a sub-contract agreement and the timing of work execution in relation to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, emphasizing the need to adhere to the Code's provisions regarding claims and payments in insolvency proceedings. The appeal was dismissed without costs awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues regarding the dismissal of an application seeking payment from the liquidator, the interpretation of a sub-contract agreement, the timing of work execution in relation to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period, and the filing of claims by the creditor with the Resolution Professional or Liquidator.

Dismissal of Application for Payment:
The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, appealed against the dismissal of their application seeking payment from the Respondent/Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the application, which sought a direction for payment of a specific sum, based on the terms of a sub-contract agreement.

Interpretation of Sub-Contract Agreement:
The Appellant contended that as per the sub-contract agreement terms, the Corporate Debtor was required to transfer payments received from the Employer to the Appellant after deducting a margin. Despite requests to release payments, no response was received, leading to the application for payment.

Timing of Work Execution in CIRP Period:
The main issue was whether the work for which payment was sought was executed prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellant claimed that the work related to the pending payment was done after the CIRP initiation date, making it a CIRP expense.

Filing of Claims with Resolution Professional/Liquidator:
The judgment highlighted the importance of filing claims with the Resolution Professional or Liquidator for work done prior to the CIRP period. The Appellant's claim for the pending amount was filed after the last submission date, leading to a dispute over the consideration of the claim by the Liquidator.

Separate Judgment by Member (Technical):
The judgment was delivered by Ms. Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical), who analyzed the contentions of both parties. The Liquidator argued that the work for which payment was sought was done before the CIRP period, and any pending amounts should be claimed following the Code's procedures.

Conclusion and Dismissal of Appeal:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that there were no substantial grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the Code's provisions regarding claims and payments in insolvency proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded, with any pending applications closed.

---