TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 894
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roval of the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor has been allowed. 2. In brief, the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 27.11.2018, initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the NRC Limited (Corporate Debtor/Respondent No. 1) and appointed Vikas Prakash Gupta (Respondent No. 2) as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) who was further confirmed as the RP of the Corporate Debtor pursuant to the resolution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in its second meeting held on 21.01.2019. The resolution plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant (RA) i.e. Adani Properties Private Limited, on 10.05.2019, was approved by the CoC with 99.88% vote share whereas 0.00% voters abstained from voting and 0.12% voters of the CoC rejected the plan. The Respondent No. 2, by way of an application bearing M.A. No. 2531 of 2019, submitted the resolution plan for consideration/approval of the Adjudicating Authority, which was approved by the members of CoC. The application i.e. 2531 of 2019 has been allowed by the impugned order dated 13.03.2020 against which the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant (Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation). 3. The brief fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipal Appeals are decided finally. The Respondent No. 1 deposited Rs. 3,72,42,000/- as the balance amount with the Appellant vide receipt no. 74307 on 08.01.2007. It is the case of the Appellant that since Municipal Appeal is still pending, therefore, the Appellant has not taken any steps for recovery of the taxes in view of the judgment dated 13.11.2006. It is averred that a meeting was called by the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra in respect of issues raised by the workers of Respondent No. 1 in which it was decided on 12.02.2009 that the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 shall enter into a registered agreement to create first charge of the Appellant on the properties of the Respondent No. 1 which shall be sufficient to recover the property tax. It is also averred that in the meeting held on 17.04.2009 with Labour Minister of Maharashtra, it was decided that the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 shall open an escrow account in a Nationalised Bank and the amount of Rs. 6,68,76,000/- receivable against the property tax by the Appellant shall be deposited by the Respondent No. 1. Further, the agreement was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 on 22.04.2009 as d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nformation memorandum (IM) on 25.03.2019 as per Section 29 r/w Regulation 36 of the Code. As per IM, the amount admitted claims of various government agencies was approximately Rs. 2.26 Crores and at no point of time the Appellant submitted their claim to the RP despite the public announcement made in accordance with law and also the letter Annexure B. It is alleged that the Appellant had the knowledge of the CIRP proceedings and ought to have submitted their claims within the prescribed period and cannot now after such a belated stage claim ignorance and attempt to stall the proceedings of the resolution process. 5. In the rejoinder to the reply filed by the Respondent No. 1, the Appellant has reiterated the averments made in the memorandum of appeal. 6. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that though neither the Appellant filed any claim about the pending dues of the property tax to the RP nor any application in this regard to the Adjudicating Authority yet it is vehemently argued that the RP was aware of the litigation between the Appellant and CD about the property tax which was not being paid despite notices. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aharashtra Municipal Corporation Act to contend that it has a first charge whereas the RP has submitted that since no claim was made in this regard, therefore, it was not part of the information memorandum. 10. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 11. From the resume of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was initiated on 27.11.2018 and the RP made the public announcement, inviting the claims of all the creditors of the Corporate Debtor by publication in Marathi (i.e.Navshakti) as well as in English (i.e The Free Press Journal) and also published notice on the website of the Corporate Debtor. It has also come on record that the RP sent a letter dated 11.12.2018 to the Appellant intimating about its appointment as IRP of the Corporate Debtor and that he has taken over the charge of the entire asset of the Corporate Debtor w.e.f.15.12.2018 but despite that the Appellant did not choose to put up any claim before the RP whereas according to the RP the claim received from Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors including the Govt. bodies and authorities were duly collated and IM was prepared on 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of Regulation 12(1), the Appellant therein was not required to file any claim. Read with Regulation 10, the Appellant would only be required to substantiate the claim by production of such material as might be called for. It was also held therein that the Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the IBC. Under Section 53(1)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secure creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act, are to rank equally with other specified debts including debts on account of workman's dues for a period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date and that the State is a secured creditor under the GVAT Act. Section 3(30) of the Code defines secured creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest is credited. Such security interest could be created by operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Govt. or Authority. It was further ordered that "as observed above, delay in filing a clam cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the claim" 13. The aforesaid decision, solely relied upon by the Appellant is not at all applicable to th....