TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging the Impugned Order of the Adjudicating Authority / National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dated 15.10.2019 filed in IA No. 204/2018 and IA No. 56/2019 under section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Brief Facts of the case : 2. Pursuant to an application filed by the financial creditor under section 7 of IBC, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings were initiated against the Corporate Debtor (CD), Lanco Infratech Ltd. and the same was admitted on 07.08.2017 and the Respondent herein was appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP). On an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP), the liquidation proceedings were initiated against the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able and asked the Appellant to clarify the difference of Rs. 57.65 crore with sufficient supporting documents to corroborate the same. This being so, the claim was later rejected by RP which was challenged by the Appellant before AA / NCLT, Hyderabad in I.A. No.204/2018. While the said IA was pending, the CD went into liquidation as per orders of AA and the RP was appointed as the liquidator. Pursuant to the public announcement made by the Respondent as the Liquidator, the Appellant herein submitted a claim for sum of Rs. 31.71 crores in Form-C on 26.09.2018. The said claim was rejected by the Respondent vide his email dated 12.12.2018. Challenging the rejection, the Appellant filed an appeal under section 42 of IBC and the same was number....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and instead, the Respondent / Liquidator issued a reply stating that a sum of Rs.1.51 crore was due and payable by the Appellant to the CD. It is the contention of the Appellant that after having accepted the claim in part, it is not open to the Respondent to reject the claim later and that he has failed in his duty as liquidator. 10. The Appellant further contends that the AA has erred by; a. overlooking the initial acknowledgement of the RP of the dues to the tune of Rs.13.47 crore, payable to the Appellant and by merely accepting the statement of the Respondent / Liquidator that the dues are disputed and there are claims and counter claims and, on that basis rejecting the application of the Appellant, b. not considering the fact t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aims, verification of claims and admission / rejection of claims without any lapse. In view of the provisions of the said Regulations, Liquidator is required to only verify the claims based on the information available and does not sit in adjudication of the disputes which may be pending between the CD and the OC and that adjudication of a dispute is not within the scope and ambit of the powers of the Liquidator. Accordingly, the new Liquidator would only be able to admit such claims as are borne out by the terms of contract entered into between the CD and the OC, or based on a statutory obligation or as reflected in a decree of a Court or Tribunal. In this case the claim of the Appellant is based on non-performance of its part by the CD an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant that an amount of Rs.13.47 crore was showing as due to the Appellant does in no manner communicate the determination made by the RP on the claim submitted by the Appellant as the job of RP is not to simply rely on the books of the CD to determine the claims and that, had that been the case the entire exercise of submission and subsequent verification of claims would not be required at all. 15. In her further submissions she has stated that the Corporate Debtor (CD) has been sold as a Going Concern in auction on as is where is basis in form of an Acquisition Plan and the Plan has been approved by AA in its order dated 26.09.2022 in IA561/2022 of CP(IB)No.111/7/HDB/20217. Accordingly, the Board of CD has been reconstituted and she as ....