Axalta Coating Systems India Private ... vs Abhit Kumar Singh Liquidator
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1164 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the claimant's submissions regarding Section 36(3)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 do not, on the material before the Tribunal, displace the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to direct the liquidator to admit a claim filed 85 days after the last date fixed for submission; the Tribunal treats the late filing as a sufficient basis for the refusal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd ...Appellant
Versus
Abhit Kumar Singh Liquidator of Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Sinha, Mr. Vivek Malik and Mr. Shubham, Advocates
For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Chaudhary and Mr. Anand Kamal, Advocates
ORDER
16.02.2023 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent
at length.
2. The Appellant preferred this Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
1164 of 2022 under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by
National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in IA
(IBC)/461/(KB)2022 filed in CP (IB)/1617(KB)2019 whereby the said IA
(IBC)/461/(KB)2022 seeking direction the liquidator to admit the claim of the
applicant, admittedly, the claims were submitted 85 days after the last date
that was on 05.12.2021. By which the Adjudicating Authority was rejected
the said IA holding that it is not feasible to direct the consideration of any
claim at this stage.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Liquidator has filed the Reply
Affidavit and Rejoinder by the Appellant, which are taken on record.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument
referred to the provisions of Section 36(3)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 and submitted that the order impugned passed by the
Adjudicating Authority is bad in law, even if the subject matter property is
disposed of and all proceeds of liquidation as and when they are realised are
to be kept in liquidation estate and when the liquidation has been done is to
be distributed the claim in order.
Based on these Submissions, the impugned order is fit to be set aside
and the instant Appeal may be allowed.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent during the course of argument
referred to Para 10 of the Reply Affidavit and submitted that the delay of 85
days in filing the claim and further it is submitted that the Corporate Debtor,
Respondent herein has entered into the Supply Agreement dated 24.08.2018
with the Appellant. Further, the Agreement was between the Appellant and
Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd. a Partnership firm and the Respondent being
Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd., has nothing to do with the Supply Agreement
dated 24.08.2018 and further the claim was filed with a delay of 85 days
despite the notice of liquidation being published on the website of the IBBI
and sufficient time being granted to all the creditors to file their claim. In view
of the fact, the Adjudication Authority has rightly been passed the impugned
order.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1164 of 2022 2 of 3
6. After hearing the parties and gone through the pleadings made on
behalf of the parties, we do not find any merit in the instant Appeal. Therefore,
the instant Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) pks/kam
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1164 of 2022 3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free