The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson with Barun Mitra and Arun Baroka, Technical Members was hearing an appeal and upheld the rejection of the Appellant's claim as it was filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan, in line with a recent Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of adhering to regulatory timelines and not entertaining claims after plan approval.
The present case revolved around an appeal filed by an Appellant against the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject their application. The Appellant sought to have their claim classified as a Financial Debt under Section 5(8) of the Code. The backdrop to this case was the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor on December 31, 2019. During this process, the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) issued a publication on January 2, 2020, setting a deadline of March 18, 2020, for creditors to file their claims.
However, the Appellant failed to meet this deadline, and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved a Resolution Plan on March 30, 2021. The Appellant subsequently filed their claim with the Resolution Professional on October 4, 2022, after the CoC's plan approval. The Appellant then filed I.A. No. 1758 of 2022, requesting the Adjudicating Authority to accept their claim.
The Adjudicating Authority, in its decision, noted that the claim had been filed after the Resolution Plan's approval, violating the prescribed timelines under the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations. Citing a recent Supreme Court judgment, the Adjudicating Authority emphasized the importance of adhering to these timelines and the adverse impact of entertaining claims after a Resolution Plan is approved. As a result, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the Appellant's application.
The Appellant, in their appeal, argued that the Resolution Plan's approval was still pending before the Adjudicating Authority, and therefore, their claim should be considered. However, the NCLAT referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment of R.P.S. Infrastructure Limited v. Mukul Kumar and Another, REED 2023 SC 09527 reiterated that claims could not be entertained post-Resolution Plan approval. Additionally, there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant's claim was reflected in the Corporate Debtor's records.
Consequently, the NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that no error had been committed in rejecting the application. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the Adjudicating Authority's decision was affirmed.
ความคิดเห็น