TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rief facts of the case are: (i) The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of solvents, dyes and chemicals for paints, plastics, resins etc. The Appellant during the period 03.02.2010 till 28.08.2010 supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor e.g. Phenol and Melamine. The Appellant Company supplied goods worth Rs.1,41,85,730, against which Corporate Debtor made payment of only Rs.19,99,104/-. The amount of Rs.1,21,86,626/- remained outstanding against the Corporate Debtor. (ii) The Appellant after issuing two statutory notices filed a Company Petition bearing No.11 of 2011 for winding up of the Corporate Debtor in the Gauhati High Court. Gauhati High Court issued notice on 14.11.2011 in the winding up petition. The Corporate Debtor appeared and sought time. The Corporate Debtor filed an Application being MISC Case No.1925 of 2012 stating that winding up proceedings be kept in abeyance in view of pendency of Reference Case No.223 of 2012 registered with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR") under Section 15(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The High Court passed an order on 20.07.2012 keeping the Company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 07.12.2018 approving the Resolution Plan or in alternative directing the Respondent No.2 to pay the amount due to the Appellant to the tune of Rs.1,21,86,626/- with interest. (vii) IA No.46 of 2020 was heard by the Adjudicating Authority and vide its order dated 27.11.2020, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the Application. Aggrieved by which order, this Appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard Shri Mr. Madhur Mahajan, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Shri Gaurav H. Sethi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Shri Sanjay Bhatt, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant had been carrying its business in the State of Maharashtra more particularly in the District Nashik, Taluka Igatpuri and Mumbai City. The Appellant could not know about the publication in the newspapers issued by IRP dated 04.05.2018. The Corporate Debtor conducted material business in the State of Maharashtra, hence, the publication ought to have also been made in the State of Maharashtra. The publication made by IRP on 04.05.2018 was not in accordance with Regulation 6(1) of 2016 Regulations, vitiating the entire Insolvency Resolution Process....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd have perused the record. 8. The submission which have been much pressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant before us is the publication issued by IRP being not in compliance of Section 15 and Regulation 6(1) of 2016 Regulations. We may first notice the relevant statutory provision regarding publication in the newspaper by the IRP in respect of initiation of CIRP as per Section 15 of the Code. Section 15 is as follows: "15. Public announcement of corporate insolvency resolution process. - (1) The public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the order referred to in section 13 shall contain the following information, namely: - (a) name and address of the corporate debtor under the corporate insolvency resolution process; (b) name of the authority with which the corporate debtor is incorporated or registered; (c) the last date for submission of claims, as may be specified; (d) details of the interim resolution professional who shall be vested with the management of the corporate debtor and be responsible for receiving claims; (e) penalties for false or misleading claims; and (f) the date on which the corporate insolvency res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts material business operations. Whether by virtue of that underlying provisions as noted above, the IRP was obliged to make publication at place where the Appellant is carrying on its business, in the State of Maharashtra, particularly in District Nashik, Taluka Igatpuri and Mumbai City? The learned Counsel for the Appellant has also referred to the purchase orders issued by Corporate Debtor, addressed to the Appellant at its Mumbai address. A detailed reply has been filed by Respondent No.1, erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor along with the public announcement in Form-A as well as newspaper publications where announcement were made have been brought on the record. In paragraph 3(iii), following has been pleaded by Respondent No.1: "3(iii) In terms of the above orders dated 01.05.2018, the Respondent No.1 being the erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional issued public announcement in prescribed Form-A dated 04.05.2018 in compliance with Section 15 of the IBC Code read with Regulation 6(1) of the CIRP Regulations in Newspaper viz. (1) Financial Express (English) at Kolkata where the Corporate Office of Kitply Industries Limited the Corporate Debtor i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sub-regulation (2) (i), the Resolution Professional was also obliged to make publication at the places where the Appellant is carrying the business. The statutory requirement cannot be stretched to mean that publication has to be made from all places where the Corporate Debtor is receiving goods and supplies. The mandatory requirement is to publish in one English and one regional newspaper with wide circulation at the location of the registered and corporate office of the Corporate Debtor and any other location, where in the opinion of the IRP the Corporate Debtor conducts material business operations. The IRP has made publication at other places as noted above, which indicates that there is compliance of requirement of Regulation 6, sub-regulation (2)(i). We thus are not persuaded with such submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant that publication ought to have also been made in the State of Maharashtra particularly District Nashik, Taluka Igatpuri and Mumbai City. 13. Admittedly, the claim was not filed by the Appellant before the IRP. The last date for receiving the claim was 18.05.2018 and Appellant filed its claim after 20 months from the last date of receiving the cla....