https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758848 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758848 Rejection of claims of the Operational Creditor on the basis that he did not get sufficient documentation - HELD THAT:- The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Regen Powertech (P) Ltd. [ 2023 (9) TMI 1406 - SUPREME COURT ] has given ratio decidendi that Resolution Professional has to be neutral party and not expected to take a stand, which is contrary in present appeal where the Appellant filed appeal on merits of the Impugned Order and that too in his personal capacity as Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor. It is further interesting to note that one Unsecured Financial Creditor, namely, Paton Construction Private Limited who is supposed to have given a loan of paltry sum of Rs. 1 Lakh knowing well that CIRP is being initiated against the Corporate Debtor, then original IRP is removed and the present Appellant is appointed as Resolution Professional, who in turn rejected the claims of Operational Creditor and accepted the claims of the Unsecured Financial Creditor and claims of promoter. This made the way for making Unsecured Financial Creditor of Rs. 1,05,877/- as a Sole Member of the CoC and ousting the Malharshanti Enterprises Limited the Operational Creditor out of CoC having claim of Rs. 1,94, 62, 148/-. Although the Adjudicating Authority in Impugned Order dated 16.02.2023 in Para 22 has recorded that the conduct of the Resolution Professional also need to be thoroughly investigated . However, the Adjudicating Authority did not give directions for the further course of action for the same or direction to the IBBI. Hence, this Appellate Tribunal is required to take this to logical conclusion as we are upholding the Impugned Order in toto. In this background, the IBBI is directed to look into the role of the Appellant in accordance with the law regarding conduct/ misconduct of the Appellant as the Resolution Professional and take further necessary action as deemed fit and warranted on the facts of the case and as per law. Cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs on the Appellant to be paid in Prime Minister s National Relief Fund within four weeks of pronouncement of this order. The compliance for the same will be reported to the Adjudicating Authority by the Appellant. Initiation of CIRP - It is claim of the Appellant that he did not know about the on going proceedings by the Respondent against the Corporate Debtor and only on publication of public announcement by the IRP inviting claims from the Creditors on 28.01.2020, the Appellant came to know about these developments and filed the claim of Rs. 1,05,877/- before the IRP/ RP - HELD THAT:- There are no fault in the finding of the Adjudicating Authority contained in Impugned Order includings as contained in para 20 against which the Appellant has filed this. The Impugned Order merely recorded that an application filed under Section 12 A on the ground of purported settlement entered between the CoC and the sole Appellant herein who is Unsecured Financial Creditor who took a loan just before passing CIRP order is indigenous idea of Corporate Debtor and the Promoters of Corporate Debtor to bring out the Corporate Debtor from the clutches of CIRP which attained the finality through back door entry. The order admitting CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was passed on 27.01.2020. This was for the first and the last time that the Appellant paid money to the Corporate Debtor - there are noting which prevented the Appellant to disburse further amount under the agreement and it is only after the claims of the operational creditor got rejected the Appellant expressed its intention to continue the business relations with the Corporate Debtor. Incidentally it has been brought to our notice by the Respondent No. 1 that the alleged loan agreement was backdated and unstamped documents. There are no error in the Impugned Order and the Appeal devoid of any merits is dismissed. Challenge to claims submitted by the Operational Creditor - fraudulent claims - HELD THAT:- Once the claims of the Operational Creditor have been crystalized and admitted by the Adjudicating Authority while admitting Section 9 application of Respondent No. 1 and initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. We also find that IRP was duly appointed by the Adjudicating Authority who collated the claims and admitted the claims of the Respondent No. 1 basis on the documentation submitted by the Respondent No. 1. It is surprising as how the claims of the Operational Creditor have been rejected later by the Resolution Professional - appeal dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 17 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530