Gaurav Katiyar vs Greater Noida Industrial Development ...

Gaurav Katiyar, ...Appellant(s) RP of Earthcon Universal Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

Greater Noida Industrial Development ...Respondent(s) Authority & Anr. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial)]

28.07.2025: This appeal is filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of

the Corporate Debtor namely, M/s Earthcon Universal Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

against the order dated 02.05.2024 by which IA No. 5144 of 2023, filed by

the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) has been

disposed of by referring the prayer made in the application to the CoC for

consideration in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of of GNIDA vs Prabhjit Singh Soni Civil Appeal no. 7590-7591 of 2023.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the grievance of the appellant is that

the Tribunal has committed an error in referring the prayer made by the

authority for revision of its claim to the CoC who has no jurisdiction to deal

with the revision of the claims.

2. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the duty of collation of

claim and revision is of the RP and not of the CoC. In this regard, he has

drawn our attention to Section 18 (b) and 25 (e) of the Code as per which the

IRP has to perform the duty of receiving and collating all the claims

submitted by the creditors pursuant to the public pronouncement made in

terms of Sections 13 and 15 and the RP has to maintain an updated list of

creditors.

3. He has also referred to Section 21 to contend that the IRP has to

constitute the CoC only after collation of claims. He has also referred to

Regulation 14(b) the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency

Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (for short

'Regulations') as per which the RP may revise the amount of claim already

admitted on additional information. Regulation 14 (2) is more relevant to

resolve this controversy which is reproduced as under: "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".

4. He has also relied upon a decision of this court in the case of 'Rajnish

Jain vs. Manoj Kumar Singh- IRP (2021) 124 taxmaan.com 213(NCLAT) to

argue that in the said case one of the issue was as to whether the CoC

constituted under Section 21 of the I & B Code, 2016, could determine the

status of a Financial or Operational Creditor? It is submitted that this court has held that the CoC has no jurisdiction to decide about the status of the

creditor as the same is decided by the RP after collating the claims.

5. No one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, after

hearing Counsel for the appellant and keeping in view the aforesaid

discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is an apparent error

on the part of the Tribunal regarding the issue of revision of the admitted

claim which has been referred to the CoC on the premise that in the past

while deciding IA No.5238/ 2023, vide its order dated 02.05.2024, the

objection as raised to the Resolution Plan was referred to the CoC.

6. In our considered opinion, the Ld. Tribunal should not have placed

reliance on the order dated 02.05.2024 as the jurisdiction only vests with

the RP for revision of the admitted claim that too on the basis of additional

information, in terms of Regulation 14(b) of the Regulation.

7. Thus in view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the

impugned order is hereby set aside. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

8. Pending IA's if any shall stand closed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) sr/rr