TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent No. 1 i.e. RP to admit the claim of the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 6,07,74,76,966/-. Submissions of the Appellant - NOIDA 3. Appeal has been filed on behalf of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant') against the order dated 05.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') of the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench III in Interlocutory Application bearing IA No. 6075 of 2023 in CP (IB) No. 440 (ND)/2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'Application'). The Appellant was the Applicant in the aforesaid Application. 4. Appellant contends that the NCLT passed the impugned order on the assumption that the aforesaid application was filed by the Appellant/Applicant for non-compliance of the order dated 18.10.2023. However, it is contended that the Respondent No. 1 admitted only a portion of appellant's claim, particularly excluding additional farmer compensation and time extension charges. Thus, the aforesaid application was vis à vis the admissibility and quantum of Appellant's claims as the secured operational creditor in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional Creditor for an amount of Rs. 6,07,74,76,966/-, supported by all necessary documents, including detailed calculations. However, the Respondent No. 1 - RP vide email dated 03.09.2022 provisionally admitted the claim of the Appellant only to the tune of Rs. 5,13,97,26,617/-. In the claim calculation sheet, no reasons were attributed with respect to farmer's compensation or time extension charges. 10. Appellant further claims that despite receiving all the relevant documents, including calculation sheets, through various emails dated 23.03.2023, 01.04.2023, 12.04.2023, and 21.04.2023, Respondent No. 1 - RP failed to admit the entire claimed amount, admitting only 600,92,77,327 out of the total claim submitted, initially reasoning that the farmer's compensation clause was not part of the lease deed. However, after the Hon'ble NCLT, by order dated 18.10.2023 in IA No. 2972 of 2023, directed Respondent No. 1 to admit the claim based on judicial pronouncements. Respondent No. 1 then shifted its position and began demanding documents that fall beyond the scope of the current CIRP. This refusal to admit the aforesaid claims is in direct contravention of Section 25(2)(e)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations. Further, the documents provided for farmer's compensation was also deemed sufficient, thereafter, Hon'ble NCLT directed Respondent No. 1 for full admission of the Appellant's claims. 14. The NCLT has failed to enforce its own order dated 18.10.2023, which directed the RP to admit the entire claim sought by the Appellant. Despite this order, the RP continued to demand unnecessary documentation from the Appellant. Furthermore, the RP's refusal to admit the Appellant's claim violates the terms of the lease deed and disregards binding judicial precedents. The Respondent No. 1 does not have the authority to override these terms or to adjudicate claims, as its role is strictly limited to verification under the IBC. Thus, this brazen abuse of law and conduct by the Respondent No. 1 is in direct violation of the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble NCLT which undermines the integrity of the judicial process. 15. The Respondent No. 1's refusal to properly verify the Appellant's claim, despite being provided with all relevant documents, demonstrates a failure to apply judicial mind as required under Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Insolvency R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y admitted the claim to the tune of Rs. 5,13,97,26,671/- and informed the Appellant vide email dated 03.09.2022. 21. Subsequently, Appellant filed an Application before Ld. NCLT seeking directions for admission of part of the claim filed by Appellant, which was rejected by the Respondent for non-submission of sufficient documents/clarifications. Some additional documents were annexed with the application to substantiate its claim. Ld. NCLT vide Order dated 18.10.2023 directed the Answering Respondent to examine all the issues and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 22. Consequent to the Order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Respondent No. 1 - RP vide email dated 31.10.2023 apprised Appellant regarding the Order passed by Ld. NCLT and sought certain clarifications/ details for admitting the remaining portion of the claim. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 - RP admitted the claim of Appellant to the extent of Rs. 600,92,77,327/- and apprised the Appellant vide email dated 06.11.2023. 23. Thereafter, Appellant filed another IA No. 6075/2023 before the Ld. NCLT seeking directions for admission of remaining claim amount, i.e. Rs. 6,81,99,639/-. The Ld. NCLT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....93,97,587/- as on 22.06.2017. Accordingly, for substantiation of claim the Respondent vide email dated 31.11.2023 sought following details to authenticate amount of Rs. 29397587 and accrued interest thereon: a. Total additional compensation paid b. Total area for which compensation paid c. Total percentage of land belonging to Corporate Debtor out of total land d. % Share of Corporate Debtor in the compensation e. Date of payment of compensation (to check interest calculation). 28. Till date the Appellant has not provided any of the aforementioned details and hence, the claim towards farmers' compensation remains unsubstantiated and hence, has not been admitted. 29. The time extension charges are to be computed at the specified rate on the allotment rate. Allotment of land admeasuring 100,080.98 sq. mtr. was made at Rs. 235,69,07,079/-. Subsequently, land admeasuring 13,961 sq. mtr. was sub-leased and only 86,119.98 sq. mtr. of land remains to be leased to the Corporate Debtor. Thus, the proportionate allotment rate for 86,119.98 sq. mtr. is computed to be Rs. 202,81,25,529 [235,69,07,079 x 86,119.98/100,080.981]. 30. The Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. 2. Saha Infratech Private Limited Amadeus 13,961 sq. mtr. 3. Dream Procon Private Limited Victory Ace 12,486.08 Sq. mtr. 35. Thereafter, in the year 2018, Corporate Debtor had approached Appellant and requested to sub-divide the Land. Later, request of Corporate Debtor was accepted and Appellant vide letter dated 07.06.2018 approved the sub-division of Land in the following manner: S. No. ENTITY AREA 1. Logix City Developers Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) 73,633.90 sq. mtr. 2. Docile Buildtech Private Limited - wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate Debtor 13,961 sq. mtr. 3. Arable Builders Private Limited - wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate Debtor 12,486.08 Sq. mtr. 36. It was also brought to our notice by the RP that all of the three developer companies are presently under CIRP. Further RP brings to our that a tripartite sub-lease deed dated 30.10.2018 was executed between Corporate Debtor, Appellant and Docile Buildtech Private Limited for transferring Land admeasuring 13,961 sq. mtr. in favour of Docile Buildtech Private Limited. Further, as per terms of sub lease deed, net liability of the corporate debt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decision of Answering Respondent until 23.03.2023. Thereafter, multiple emails were exchanged relating to non-substantiation of unadmitted portion of claim as Appellant failed to provide requisite clarification/documents, necessary for verification and admission of balance claim amount. 41. Subsequently, on 16.05.2023, 9 months after the commencement of CIRP, Appellant filed IA No. 2792/2023 before the Ld. NCLT seeking directions against the Answering Respondent herein to admit the claim of Appellant to the tune of Rs. 6,07,74,76,966. The Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 18.10.2023 directed the RP to examine all the issues and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Consequently, the Respondent No. 1 - RP sought certain clarifications / details for admitting the remaining portion of the claim. Basis the reply, the RP admitted the claim of the Appellant to the extent of Rs. 601 Crores (approx.) and apprised the Appellant vide email dated 06.11.2023. The heads under which the claim amount was admitted / not admitted have been reproduced hereunder for convenience of this Hon'ble Tribunal: S. No. Head Amount claimed Amount admitted Remark ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant submitted another calculation sheet for farmers' compensation. wherein the land area has been simply changed from 100080.98 Sq. mtr. to 86,119.98 sq. mtr. without any change in the amount of. 46. We also find that both the calculation sheet for the farmer's compensation, indicate an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,93,97,587/- as of June 22, 2017. Subsequently, interest at a rate of 14% has been computed on this sum. However, we find that the Appellant has not provided any document to explain the basis for arriving at the figure of Rs. 2,93,97,587/-. We find that the resolution professional had requested the appellant vide emails dated October 31, 2023, November 21, 2023, and a reminder email on November 25, 2023, yet the Appellant has failed to substantiate the farmer's compensation claim. 47. The Appellant claims that the resolution professional cannot adjudicate over the claims. It relies upon various judicial pronouncements that the adjudicatory power does not lie with the resolution professional. In the present matter, the RP has gone beyond the powers so envisaged for him and has, despite being provided with requisite documents and explanations, failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age its operations until a resolution professional is appointed by the Committee of Creditors; (e) file information collected with the information utility, if necessary; and (f) take control and custody of any asset over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights as recorded in the balance sheet of the corporate debtor, or with information utility or the depository of securities or any other registry that records the ownership of assets including- (i) assets over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights which may be located in a foreign country; (ii) assets that may or may not be in possession of the corporate debtor; (iii) tangible assets, whether movable or immovable; (iv) intangible assets including intellectual property; (v) securities including shares held in any subsidiary of the corporate debtor, financial instruments, insurance policies; (vi) assets subject to the determination of ownership by a court or authority; (g) to perform such other duties as may be specified by the Board. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the term "assets" shall not include the following, namel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orate debtor; (d) filed with the adjudicating authority; and (e) presented at the first meeting of the committee. 14. Determination of amount of claim.-(1) Where the amount claimed by a creditor is not precise due to any contingency or other reason, the interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, shall make the best estimate of the amount of the claim based on the information available with him. (2) The interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, shall revise the amounts of claims admitted, including the estimates of claims made under sub-regulation (1), as soon as may be practicable, when he comes across additional information warranting such revision." It is clear from a reading of these Regulations that the resolution professional is given administrative as opposed to quasi-judicial powers. In fact, even when the resolution professional is to make a "determination" under Regulation 35-A, he is only to apply to the adjudicating authority for appropriate relief based on the determination made as follows: "35-A. Preferential and other transactions.-(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pee Infratech Ltd. vs. Axis Bank Ltd. (2020) 8 SCC 401 (Para No. 53.2) 53.2. In the relevant part, the Court found that NCLAT had fallen in grave error in reading para 77 in Swiss Ribbons dehors the earlier paragraphs. In that context this Court said: (Essar Steel case, SCC pp. 605-06, paras 88-89) "88. By reading para 77 dehors the earlier paragraphs, the Appellate Tribunal has fallen into grave error. Para 76 clearly refers to the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide which makes it clear beyond any doubt that equitable treatment is only of similarly situated creditors. This being so, the observation in para 77 cannot be read to mean that financial and operational creditors must be paid the same amounts in any resolution plan before it can pass muster. On the contrary, para 77 itself makes it clear that there is a difference in payment of the debts of financial and operational creditors, operational creditors having to receive a minimum payment, being not less than liquidation value, which does not apply to financial creditors. The amended Regulation 38 set out in para 77 again does not lead to the conclusion that financial and operational creditors, or secured an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Appeal No. 7590-7591 of 2023) (Para No. 21 to 22) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 INSC 102 (Civil Appeal Nos. 7590-7591 of 2023; pp. 14-15 of the judgment) 21. Once a claim is submitted with proof under any of the Regulations (i.e., Regulations 7, 8, 8-A, 9 and 9-A), the IRP or the RP, as the case may be, as per Regulation 13, has to verify the claim, as on the insolvency commencement date, and thereupon maintain a list of creditors containing names of creditors along with the amount claimed by them, the amount of their claims admitted and the security interest, if any, in respect of such claims, and update it in terms of Regulation 12 A. 22. As it could be noticed from the CIRP Regulations, 2016, on submission of a claim with proof, the IRP or the RP, as the case may be, has to verify the claim and prepare a list of creditors containing names of creditors along with the amount claimed by them and security interest, if any, the logical conclusion derivable from the provisions analysed above would be that the Form in which a claim is to be submitted under the CIRP Regulations 2016 is directory and not mandatory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for substantiation of the claim, the Resolution Professional sought the following details to authenticate the amount of Rs. 2,93,97,587 and accrued interest thereon: • Total additional compensation paid • Total area for which compensation was paid • Total percentage of land belonging to the corporate debtor out of the total land • Percentage share of the Corporate Debtor in the compensation • The date of payment of compensation to check the interest calculation period However, till date, the Appellant has not provided any of the aforementioned details. Rightly, the claim towards former's compensation remains unsubstantiated, and the Resolution Professional was right in not admitting it. 53. We have gone through the calculations provided by the Appellant as well as the Respondent No. 1 - RP, gone into the justification provided by the both sides and I have also looked into the material placed on record. 54. We find that the Respondent No. 1 - RP was justified in asking some additional information which was sought by it and which is noted as below: "a. Total additional compensation paid b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he RP has to maintain and update list of claims and while doing so can seek additional documents and clarifications, is a part of its duty. This cannot be considered as an adjudicatory function. 61. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the appeal noted as follows: XXX 6. The Applicant filed its claim for Rs. 6,07,74,76,966/-. and the respondent, verified and admitted the claim to the tune of Rs. 600,92,77,327/- and informed the Applicant. Accordingly, being aggrieved the Applicant has filed the instant application for admission of remaining portion of the claim, i.e. Rs. 6,81,99,639/- and for non-compliance of the Order dated 18.10.2023. 7. Pursuant to the Order passed in IA No. 2972 of 2023 dated 18.10.2023, the Resolution Professional has re-considered the claim of the Applicant as directed by this Adjudicating Authority arrived at the amount of Rs. 6,00,92,77,327/- based on the documents made available by the Applicant. 8. We do not consider that there is any non-compliance of the Order dated 18.10.2023 passed in IA No. 2972/2023. The Application (IA-6075/2023) is disposed of accordingly. XXX 62. We also note that the resolution appl....