2021 (8) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is the case of the applicant that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) has been initiated against the respondent-corporate debtor on 17.12.2019 when CP (IB) No. 250/Chd/Pb/2018 filed by the Central Bank of India, a financial creditor, was admitted by this Adjudicating Authority and an IRP was appointed thereon. The applicant, an operational creditor of the respondent-corporate debtor could not file its claim before the last date of submission of claims which was 31.12.2019, as it had no knowledge about the initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor at the relevant point of time, however it has submitted its claim on 07.01.2020. Since the said claim was not in the proper Form B, the respondent suggested to the applicant through mail dated 14.01.2020 to file the claim in Form B (Annexure 1). On receipt of the said mail, the applicant resubmitted its claim in the proper Form, as an operational creditor on 30.01.2020 (Annexure 2). However, the respondent-RP vide the impugned Annexure 3 e-mail dated 04.02.2020 rejected the claim of the applicant by stating that its claim of Rs. 1,42,70,259/- and interest of Rs. 1,07,68,953/- is not admissible since it is outstanding for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bout the same could not submit its claim before the last date of submission of claims which was 31.12.2019 however, the applicant submitted its claim dated 16.06.2020 on 19.06.2020 in the prescribed Form B (Annexure 1). The respondent vide Annexure 2 (Colly) e-mail dated 25.06.2020 sought certain clarifications and documents for verification of the claim from the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant submitted the required documents on 05.07.2020. The respondent vide Annexure 2 (Colly) e-mail dated 07.07.2020 partially admitted the claim of the applicant i.e. only for the principal amount of Rs. 47,05,238/- and rejected the claim of interest of Rs. 32,16,842/- by stating that there was no written agreement between the applicant and the corporate debtor for payment of any interest. 10. Heard Mr. Jatin Singal, the learned authorized representative for the applicant and Mr. Harsh Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent-Resolution Professional and perused the pleadings on record. 11. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that though there was no written agreement between the parties for payment of interest on the due amount for the delayed period but the applicant being....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act. (3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 of that Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India. (5) Every r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....P cannot reject the claim of the applicant, unless the same is abnormally delayed and made after the approval of the resolution plan. But in the instant case the submission of claim was prior to the approval of the plan by the COC and hence, the action of the RP in rejecting the claim on the ground of belated submission i.e. beyond 90 days of the initiation of CIRP is unsustainable. 19. In so far as the other reason given by the RP for rejection of the claim of the applicant i.e. the claim was outstanding for more than three years and is a time barred debt and barred by limitation, the applicant failed to state how his claim is still enforceable against the corporate debtor as on the date of initiation of the CIRP. Once the claim, prima facie, cannot be treated as an enforceable debt, it is not admissible. Hence, in this regard, the action of the RP cannot be found fault with. 20. In these circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the IA No. 667/2020 and accordingly, the same is dismissed. IA No. 707/2020 21. When this IA is taken up for hearing, both the learned counsels are ad idem that the instant IA is identical to that of the IA No. 6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed under Section 60(5) of the IBC 2016 and Regulation 25 and 26 of the IBBI (IRP for CP) Regulations, 2016 against the RP seeking the following reliefs:- "It is prayed that the court may be pleased to; a. That it be declared that Nipan Bansal was neither appointed as a RP nor can be permitted to continue as such. b. restrain the said Nipan Bansal from continuing any further action as an RP c. pass such other others as the court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 26. IA No. 466/2020 has been filed by Shri Sarish Mittal, a Suspended Director of the corporate debtor M/s. KSM Spinning Mills Limited under Section 60(5) of the IBC 2016 against the RP seeking the following reliefs:- "That the Court may be pleased to set aside the appointment of the RP and take appropriate action thereof. That the tribunal may pass such order as may be necessary and issue directions to ensure that the COC and the IRP/RP (challenge is made separately to the continuation of Nipan Bansal as RP) take adequate steps to ensure that the electricity supply is restored so that the company may be brought back to working." 27. All the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the COC and that an application under Section 30(6) read with Section 31 of IBC 2016 had already been filed and is pending before this Adjudicating Authority. The role of the RP, almost came to an end and that no further action is required to be taken by the RP, unless in the event of rejection of the resolution plan by this Adjudicating Authority. It is also to be seen that when allegations of mala fides or corruption or professional misconduct or any other sort are alleged against a RP, the same are to be adjudicated by the IBBI and basing on the orders passed by the IBBI, appropriate action would be taken by this Adjudicating Authority. Since, admittedly the applicant made complaint against the respondent-RP to the IBBI, at this stage, we are not inclined to adjudicate and give any finding on these IAs. 32. Accordingly, IA Nos. 265/2020, 266/2020, 462/2020 & 466/2020 are disposed of with a liberty to the applicant to take appropriate steps, once the IBBI decides his complaint made against the respondent-RP. 33. Accordingly, IA Nos. 265/2020, 266/2020, 462/2020 & 466/2020 are disposed. IA No. 817/2020 34. Shri Sarish Mittal, a Suspended Director of the Corporate....