TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Lifescience Private Limited which had moved Application CA No. 171 of 2019 claiming to be Intervener in Insolvency proceeding - CP(IB) No. 102/Chd/CHD/2018. Appellant sought release of raw material/stock lying at the plant of Corporate Debtor as belonging to it and sought further directions The original proceedings were initiated by Operational Creditor M/s Weather Makers Pvt. Ltd. against the Corporate Debtor M/s Parabolic Drugs Ltd. who filed an Application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'IBC') dated 23.08.2018. The Application filed by Appellant was disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench), Chandigarh passing the following operative order dated 26.07.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Before we part with, it is advisable to direct Resolution Professional to further take into account the position of stock and if possible segregate between pre and post moratorium. If the expenditure has nexus with premoratorium, the same is to be excluded out of the CIRP cost. The adjustment/set-off is to be made only for those expenditure which has relation to the stock supplied pre commencement of CIRP. " ... [Emphasis supplied] 2. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant mainly seeking following reliefs: .. (a) Notwithstanding any other issues concerning the alleged pending dues or otherwise, and considering the perishable nature of the Raw Materials/Stock, pass appropriate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted. The said stock is perishable in nature with Expiry Date. When CIRP started, the Appellant requested IRP for permission to remove the said Raw Materials/Stocks as the same were exclusively owned by the Appellant and moratorium did not apply to the same stocks. It was denied and consequently Intervention Application was required to be filed for immediate release of goods and to direct Resolution Professional to release admitted dues. 4. It is stated that in Form-B, the Appellant claimed Rs. 16,06,33,009/-. The statement of the Appellant was published as Operational Creditor on the website of the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant realised that only a part of the claim had been admitted by the Resolution Professional. According to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocks lying had expiry date after which it would lose value. According to the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order raised following two issues as under: b) "The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an order directing the Corporate Debtor/RP/COC to release the Intervener's raw material/stock lying at the Corporate Debtor's plant immediately. c) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an order directing the Corporate Debtor/RP/COC to accept the Difference Amount and add the same to the admitted claim amount of the Intervener." 6. The Appellant is submitting that although the Impugned Order is in favour of the Appellant with regard to the issue mentioned in "b", the Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same the Appellant should not be permitted to take stock lying with the Corporate Debtor. 8. It is the further defence of the Resolution Professional that CoC was informed on 07.03.2019 that aggregate amount of Rs. 2,54,26,007/- as due till September, 2018 which was yet not paid by the Appellant towards the operational expenses incurred on account of manufacturing of goods belonging to the Appellant for the period starting from 01.05.2018 till 30.08.2018 along with an amount of Rs. 31,86,651/- paid from the cash flows of the Corporate Debtors towards salary expenses for the month of September in terms of the Agreement. As per Resolution Professional, CoC resolved that the Appellant should clear the outstanding dues of the Corporate D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that there were goods owned by the Appellant lying at the plant of the Corporate Debtor but at the same it also found that there were dues payable by the Appellant. There was some overlapping as the Appellant appears to have acted in terms of the Agreement dated 01.05.2018 between 22.06.2018 to 04.10.2018. It must be remembered that Section 9 Application was admitted on 23.08.2018 and thus there were occasions which were required to be taken note with regard to pro or post moratorium. In view of this, the Adjudicating Authority passed orders as noted in paragraph -21 which has been reproduced above. We do not find that the Appellant can find fault with the Resolution Professional if the claim as made by the Appellant did not get support....