G.V. Suresh Kumar & Ors vs Kapil Dev Taneja Resolution ...

G.V. Suresh Kumar & Ors. ...Appellants

Vs

Kapil Dev Taneja, RP in ....Respondent CIRP of M/s Apex Drugs Ltd. Present: For Appellants: Mr. Y. Rajagopala Rao, Advocate

For Respondent: None.

ORDER

07.11.2019 There is a delay of 14 days in preferring the appeal. For the

reasons stated by the Appellant and being satisfied with the grounds, the delay

of 14 days is condoned. I.A. No. 3433 of 2019 stands disposed of.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process (in short CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor M/s Apex

Drugs Ltd on 6th September, 2018 and earlier appointed IRP was substituted by

Respondent No. 2 - Kapil Dev Taneja who became the Resolution Professional as

per order dated 26.11.2018. The Expression of Interest was invited by Public

Notice and in the 10th meeting of Committee of Creditors, Resolution Plan was

approved and the Resolution Professional filed Interlocutory Application No. 439

of 2019 before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal)

Hyderabad, Hyderabad seeking approval of the Resolution Plan.

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1162 of 2019 Page 1 of 4

3. It appears from the impugned order that the last date for completion of

CIRP was 03.06.2019. While I.A. No. 439 of 2019 was pending approval of the

Adjudicating Authority, the Appellants claiming to be employees of the Corporate

Debtor went and submitted claim before the Resolution Professional on

27.06.2019. Resolution Professional took stand that the Respondent is functus

officio and when the Appellants moved the Adjudicating Authority, the

Adjudicating Authority observed:

...

"6. We have gone through the contentions raised by the

Respondent in his counter. After considering counter and

annexure filed with it, and on perusal of Rules and regulations

relied by the Respondent under Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 we are of the considered view that the claims by

RP can be admitted only within 90 days from the starting of

CIRP Proceedings, upon submission of claim in prescribed form

and formats.

7. In the present case, it is clear that there is a failure

on part of the Applicant in filing the claim against the

Corporate Debtor to the Resolution Professional. On perusal of

documents annexed in counter it is assured that the

Respondent has performed his duty and the public notice was

issued for calling of claims. The Resolution Professional is no

where liable to issue personal notice to the Debtors of the

Company. Thus, the contention of the Applicants that

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1162 of 2019 Page 2 of 4 Resolution Professional did not inform about submitting the

claim is vague."

...

4. The Adjudicating Authority observed that in the main petition Resolution

Plan was pending for approval and thus claim now tendered by the Appellants

could not be considered.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellants are

employees of the Corporate Debtor and did not know about the Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process. Appeal claims that the Appellants continued and

still continue to be workmen and were continuously present in the premises on

working days. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the

Appellant. When Public Notice was issued, whoever is eligible and wants to file

claim, can file the claim with IRP/RP in prescribed form. After Resolution Plan

has already been submitted, such claims cannot be accepted. The process

cannot be reversed in a manner that clock is set back. Such actions can lead the

Company into liquidation.

6. It appears to us that the option for the Appellant is to take help of Section

60(6) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and may resort to appropriate

remedy in appropriate forum.

7. The appeal shows that the Appellants have already taken up the issue with

the Commissioner of Labour who has issued Certificate of Recovery on

04.07.2019. The Appellants can pursue their legally available remedies, which

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1162 of 2019 Page 3 of 4 they have already adopted, after further developments in the proceeding pending

before the Adjudicating Authority and end of moratorium.

8. With these observations, we decline to entertain the appeal. The appeal is

accordingly disposed of.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical)

(V P Singh) Member(Technical) Akc/Gc

Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1162 of 2019 Page 4 of 4