TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "8. Now the point for determination is as to whether this Applicant is entitled to claim which is claimed as damages and compensation for Rs. 2.35 Crores and interest portion for Rs. 2.90 Crores. 9. The Corporate Debtor has never agreed to pay towards these two components rejected by the Liquidator, whereby we are of the view that this Applicant is not entitled to claim anything that has not been crystallized in the agreement and that has not been agreed between the parties, therefore, we are of the view that this Liquidator has rightly rejected those two claims. 10. As to the second point i.e. not mentioning about the reasons for rejection of those two claims, it is true that the Liquidator has not given reasons in detail, but that does not mean reasons are not given. Moreover, if the claim of the Applicant is ascertainable, then only the question of considering it as claim will arise. In this case, as to the above two components of claims raised by the Applicant, they are rejected on the ground no covenant has been arrived at over these two claims. When claim itself not claimable, for the sake of giving reasons in detail, that procedure is required to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. It comes to be known that the Company was ordered to be liquidated on 30.01.2019 and that the Appellant submitted its claim to the Liquidator under Form-C. The Appellant had furnished a Surveyors Report together with its claim and that the relevant portion of said Report runs as under: "Storage Tanks: Storage Tanks - 2Nos at SBQ STEEL Description As per Bills provided by IQCL in the Month of October Year 2010 Value in Rs. (Approx.) 1.MS Steel CRVT-2 nos of 286 KL Capacity for FO Service Pipe line works etc. with connected Pipe lines 7 Mts Dia X 7.5 Mtr Ht 6. The contention of the Appellant is that the 'Liquidator' had rejected the claim of Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,35,00,000/- towards investment made in the storage facility and Rs. 2,90,00,000/- in respect of interest. As a matter of fact, the Appellant's claims to the tune of Rs. 9,87,93,000/- was admitted by the Liquidator as per email dated 23.04.2019 and more importantly, no reasons were assigned for rejecting the claims on 'Investments' made and for 'payment of Interest'. 7. The submission of the Learned counsel of the Appellant is that the 'Liquidator' had not clearly mentioned in so many words....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Corporate Debtor, for want of information pertaining to the proof of such claim pertaining to interest of damage clause, the Respondent's office duly accepted a sum of Rs. 9,88,00,000/- through email dated 23.04.2019. 12. In short, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the Respondent that the claim of the Appellant was partly accepted by the Respondent on 23.04.2019 and in respect of the claim of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- the same is not to be accepted because of the pending 'Arbitration Proceedings' were pending. Therefore, when an amount is in dispute/disputed then, an Operational Creditor is not entitled to receive such claim during 'Liquidation'. Apart from this, in the year 2014, the Operational Creditor invoked the 'Arbitration Proceedings' and till the year 2017 the same was not over and no order was passed in respect of the same, till date. As such, it is contended that the 'Corporate Debtor' was actually disputing the said amount claimed by the 'Operational Creditor' and that the pendency of 'Arbitration' is enough to exhibit 'Dispute', in which event, a 'Liquidator' is necessarily to reject the claim of an 'Operational Creditor'. 13. The learned counsel for the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iquidator' had mentioned in the e-mail as per contractual agreement there was no provision for interest and hence it was not considered. 17. As a matter of fact, ascribing reasons are the 'heart and soul' of a reasoned order/ judgement. It is relevantly pointed out that in the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority, the said Authority at paragraph 9 and among other things observed that the Appellant (Applicant) is not entitled to claim anything that has not been crystallised in the Agreement and that has not been agreed between the parties and opined that the 'Liquidator' had rightly rejected these two claims. But the Adjudicating Authority at para 10 of the impugned order had proceeded to observe that the 'Liquidator' had not assigned reasons in detail for rejection of the two claims in the subject matter in issue, but that was not to mean reasons were not furnished and resultantly came to the conclusion that when the claim itself was not claimable, for the sake of giving reasons in detail that procedure was required to be repeated and continuing further, not giving any reasons in detail could not be a ground for invalidating the claim already considered and rejected by '....