TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per: Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (J) This MA(IBC)/11(KOB)/2022 has been filed under Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Operational Creditor in IBA/35(KOB)/2019 in the matter of M/s. Goodwin Packpet Private Limited seeking the following reliefs: a) To set aside Annexure A8 order of the 2nd respondent rejecting the claim of the Appellant for the refund of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid by him towards the I.R.P to meet out the initial expenses and declare the same as illegal and not a speaking order. b) To direct the Liquidator to refund the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid by the Operational Creditor/Appellant towards the C.I.R.P to meet out the initial expenses, at the time of distribution of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....krishnan Baburajan as the Liquidator. The 2nd respondent made public announcement in two newspapers and the Appellant/Operational Creditor submitted his claim in Form-C. However, the Liquidator did not take into account the expenses incurred by the Operational Creditor towards the initial IRP expenses of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh). 4. The Liquidator sent a letter dated 17/03/2021 to the Operational Creditor stating that the claim of Rs. 48,45,743/- (Rupees forty-eight lakh forty-five thousand seven hundred and forty-three) has been admitted, whereas, the claim of Rs. 27,26,627/- (Rupees twenty-seven lakh twenty-six thousand six hundred and twenty-seven) (interest) has been rejected. The said rejection was challenged by the Appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 11/03/2022 rejected the request of the Appellant and the rejection order was sent to the Operational Creditor vide order dated 01/04/2022. This order is under challenge in this application. In the letter dated 01/04/2022, the 2nd respondent stated that the 2nd respondent in the capacity of Liquidator cannot himself on his own decision approve the claim for refund of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) and that the Appellant should obtain an order from this Tribunal. The Appellant stated that it is a well settled proposition of law that a Creditor may come in and prove his debt at any time before the final distribution of assets, but he cannot distribute any dividend which has already been paid. Therefore, in this case the liquidation proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellant is received by the Liquidator either from the IRP or from the Appellant prior to the dismissal of the above appeal. The Appellant never submitted any claim to the Liquidator upto 12/01/2022 to include it in the CIRP costs and to reimburse the same to him. Even after the Liquidator requested the former IRP to submit the documents relating to CIRP of Goodwill Packpet Private Limited, he did not send any reply nor produce the documents sought for. Even though a reply was received from the former IRP on 01/03/2021, there were no documents relating to receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) from the Appellant along with the letter. He has stated that it was the duty of the former IRP to hand over the details of income/receipt a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the IRP in handing over to the Liquidator the documents relating to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) paid by the Appellant to the IRP. 10. We have heard the learned counsel Shri. Arun Chand appearing for the Appellant and Shri. Balakrishnan Baburajan, Liquidator appeared through Video Conferencing (VC). As directed by this Tribunal the former IRP Shri. Satiq Buhari also appeared through VC. The only question to be answered in this appeal is whether the Operational Creditor is entitled to get back the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) paid by him to the IRP to meet the initial expenses of CIRP. The Appellant has produced a receipt dated 12/01/2022 issued by the Former IRP Shri. Satiq Buhari which reads as under: Receipt wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- (Rupees two lakh) is to be paid back to the Operational Creditor by the Liquidator, as the said amount is rightfully payable to him when the CIRP proceeds are finalized. 12. The former IRP who appeared through VC stated that there is a delay on his part to reply the communication of the Liquidation and that the same may be excused. The 2nd respondent Liquidator stated that he is ready to accept the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) if this Tribunal gives a direction to that affect. Since we find that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) is legally entitled to the Operational Creditor Shri. Amrjeeth Singh, we allow this Application and direct the 2nd respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) ....