TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-II) in I.A. No. 899/AHM/2022 in CP (IB) No. 232 (AHM) of 2018. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has approved the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor. Since the resolution plan did not incorporate the claims of the Appellant, aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred. 2. Outlining the factual matrix, we find that the Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP' in short) by the Adjudicating Authority on 28.01.2022 following a Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor-IDBI Bank Limited. Thereafter, an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed who took steps to invite claims having made the requisite Public Announcement besides constituting the Committee of Creditor ("CoC" in short). The IRP was confirmed as Resolution Professional ("RP" in short). The 90 days period for filing of claims expired on 28.04.2022. Post the initiation of CIRP and imposition of moratorium, the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appellant had initiated the income tax assessment proceedings of the Corporate Debtor and passed the assessment order for Assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king copies of orders for years 2018-19 to 2020-21 in respect of the claims. 14. 20.06.2022 List of creditors of the Corporate Debtor was uploaded by RP which indicated that the claim of the Appellant was rejected. 15. 27.07.2022 180 days of CIRP period expired. No challenge filed by Appellant on rejection of claim. 16. 04.08.2022 Updated list of creditors which showed claim of Appellant as rejected. 17. 15.10.2022 CoC approved the Resolution Plan by GAIL. 18. 20.10.2022 RP filed IA 899/22 before Adjudicating Authority for Plan approval. 19 30.10.2022 270 days of CIRP period expired. No challenge filed by Appellant on rejection of claim. 20. 09.11.2022 Adjudicating Authority issued notice in IA 899/22 upon the Appellant. 21. 02.02.2023 Hearing conducted by the Adjudicating Authority. Appellant was present and did not make any submissions including in relation to their claims. 22. 21.02.2023 Hearing conducted by Adjudicating Authority Appellant present and did not make any submissions including in relation to their claims. 23. 13.03.2023 Adjudicating Authority passed the Impugned Order approvin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Appellant had been rejected without giving them an opportunity to present their case which amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice besides causing irreparable loss. It was further contended that the resolution plan was therefore liable to be rejected as it fell foul of Section 30(2) of the IBC. 6. Refuting the contentions put forth by the Appellant, the Ld. Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1-RP submitted that the Appellant has misrepresented that opportunity was denied to the Appellant in the matter of consideration of his claim by the RP and the Adjudicating Authority. It was pointed out that Appellant had been kept informed by the RP on 10.02.2022 regarding initiation of CIRP. Moreover, public announcement was issued as per IBBI (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 ("CIRP Regulations" in short) whereby claims were invited from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The RP had also complied with the prescriptions laid down under the CIRP Regulations for uploading the updated list of creditors with the status of their claims on the website of the Corporate Debtor and on the IBBI portal from time to time. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted into CIRP. It was also pointed out that the Appellant being the Income Tax Department could not have filed its claim as a Secured Creditor since the Income Tax Act does not provide basis for the Income Tax Department to be treated as secured Operational Creditor. In support of their contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of AVIL Menezes Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 856. 8. While reiterating the submissions made by the RP, the Ld. Sr. Counsel for Respondent No.2-IDBI made certain additional submissions. It was pointed out that the Appellant had not only submitted its claim beyond 90 days extended period, but had failed to provide reasons justifying the delay. It was also asserted that an order by the Adjudicating Authority approving a resolution plan can be challenged before the Appellate Authority only on the grounds specified under Section 61 of the IBC. However, no such grounds have been made out by the Appellant. 9. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully. 10. The primary issue which arises for our con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent referred to in sub-regulation (1) shall:- (a) be in Form A of the [Schedule I] (b) be published- (i) in one English and one regional language newspaper with wide circulation at the location of the registered office and principal office, if any, of the corporate debtor and any other location where in the opinion of the interim resolution professional, the corporate debtor conducts material business operations; (ii) on the website, if any, of the corporate debtor; and (iii) on the website, if any, designated by the Board for the purpose, ...... (c) provide the last date for submission of proofs of claim, which shall be fourteen days from the date of appointment of the interim resolution professional. 7. Claims by operational creditors.- (1) A person claiming to be an operational creditor, other than workman or employee of the corporate debtor, shall submit claim with proof to the interim resolution professional in person, by post or by electronic means in Form B of the Schedule I Provided that such person may submit supplementary documents or clarifications in support of the claim before the constitu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorised representatives] (c) displayed on the website, if any, of the corporate debtor; [(ca) filed on the electronic platform of the Board for dissemination on its website: ...... 12. We have no doubts in our mind that the RP as a facilitator of the insolvency resolution process, it is incumbent upon him to discharge his responsibilities with the highest standards of professionalism, integrity and good faith while safeguarding the interest of all competing stakeholders in a nonpartisan manner. The RP is expected to assist in the CIRP process in a fair and objective manner in the best interest of all stakeholders. Section 18 of the IBC sets out the various duties of IRP in respect of handling claims. Section 18(1)(b) lays down that the IRP shall receive and collate all the claims submitted by creditors to him, pursuant to the public announcement made under Section 13 and 15 of the IBC. 13. To begin with our analysis and findings, we would like to examine whether the RP had adhered to the provisions of IBC and CIRP Regulations while receiving, collating and verifying the claims submitted to him by the Appellant. In the present case, we notice that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irm belief that the RP was well within his rights to seek additional information from the Appellant to substantiate his claims as permissible under Regulation 10 of the CIRP Regulation which permits the RP to "call for such other evidence or clarification as he deems fit from a creditor for substantiating the whole or part of its claim". The RP was well empowered to seek additional evidence to analyse the admissibility of claims before him. Thus, the RP cannot be faulted for having sought clarifications since the RP was duty bound to verify the claims and call for additional evidence in substantiation of the claims submitted. Coming to the contention of the Appellant that the RP had given only 24 hours' time to furnish the supporting documents we find that since the 90 days period for submission of claims had already expired and the RP is required to adhere to the prescribed time-lines laid down under the IBC, it was not unreasonable on his part to have provisioned a tight time-frame for response. Having filed their claim belatedly, the Appellant cannot blame the RP for having allowed a small window of time for filing supporting documents. IBC is a time bound process and the Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim. Hence there is no force in the contention of Appellant that they became aware that their claim was rejected only when the impugned order was emailed by the RP. 17. We now proceed to examine whether the RP had dealt with the claim of the Appellant in a non-partisan manner or had wilfully stalled the claim of the Appellant. The Appellant admittedly had eventually filed their claim on 13.05.2022 for Rs. 10.14 Cr. in respect of TDS dues of the Corporate Debtor for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21. The RP sought copies of relevant orders on 14.06.2022 to which allegedly it did not receive any response from the Appellant. Per contra, it is the contention of the Appellant that it was allowed extremely short period to respond and hence they had telephonically informed that it had already sent the supporting documents earlier on 13.05.2022. Needless to add, the RP is not expected to process and verify the claims of a creditor without supporting proof and to that extent cannot be held to have acted in an unwarranted manner. In fact, the Appellant was remiss that it did not follow up with the RP anytime thereafter seeking any update about the status of their claim or the CIRP process. 18. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s can be entertained once the resolution plan is approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority. 20. When we look at the resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority, it has been held by the Adjudicating Authority that it does not violate any provisions of the IBC including Section 30(2) and is in accordance with law. The plan was reviewed and found by Adjudicating Authority to comply with all legal requirements. The Appellant on the other hand, nearly six weeks after the resolution plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority, filed the present appeal raising objections to the resolution plan approval and that too not on grounds of contravention of Section 30(2) of the IBC but on grounds of rejection of its claim. Had they submitted their respective claims even within the extended time-frame of 90 days and the RP refused to collate their claim, only then the Appellant could have rightly contended that there had occurred some irregularity. In the instant case, the facts on record do not show that the RP had acted in contravention of the IBC in rejecting or stalling the filing of belated claims or that he did not show due diligence in performing his duty. Hence t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors 2019 SCC Online SC 1478 has held: "107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/ Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution Applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution Applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution Applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution Applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, the NCLAT judgment must a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 25. There is force in the contention of Respondents that allowing such belated claims would lead to a situation where the SRA is made to face the uncertainty of undecided claims. If new claims are entertained after the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the plan would be jeopardised and this would set the clock back on the CIRP process which would militate against the intent and object of the IBC. We are therefore of the considered view that when the plan has already been approved by both the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be reopened now on the basis of claims bei....