Goltens India Private Limited vs Sudip Bhattacharya

IN THE MATTER OF: Goltens India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Sudip Bhattacharya, Insolvency Resolution ...Respondent professional of Reliance Naval and Engineering Ltd.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Adarsh Tripathi and Mr. Vikram Singh Baid, Advocates

For Respondent : Ms. Preachi Johri, Advocate.

ORDER

16.08.2022 Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 30.03.2022 in so far as

I.A. No. 135 of 2021 filed by Appellant has been disposed of. CIRP against

Corporate Debtor commenced on 15.01.2020. The Appellant in the CIRP has

filed his claim on 29.09.2020. The Appellant had filed a Commercial Suit

bearing No. COMS/1218/2019 before Bombay High Court for recovery of

outstanding amount from the Corporate Debtor, which Suit is still pending.

The Resolution Professional has accepted the claim of the Appellant as

'Contingent Claim'. Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC where a sum of

Re. 1 was earmarked to the claim of the Appellant as a contingent claim. I.A.

No. 135 of 2021 was filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority

seeking direction against the Resolution Professional for rejecting his claim and

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 571 of 2022 Page 1 of 3 also to include the name of the Applicant in the list of the creditors of the

Corporate Debtor.

3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Resolution

Professional that during pendency of the I.A., on direction of the Adjudicating

Authority, the claim was re-verified and additional documents were filed

brining on record before the Adjudicating Authority that the claim of the

Appellant was admitted as a 'Contingent Claim'. This is also reflected in the

Resolution Plan.

4. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the aforesaid

facts:

...... "Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pahwa states that in reply page No. 24, the e-mail communication sent to the Applicant on 16.03.2021, the RP has mentioned that in the light of the pendency of the suit being COMS/1218/2019 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the said amount claimed by the Applicant will be treated as contingent claimed until any judgment pronounced in the said suit, but admitting nominal amount of INR 1 as the claim of Applicant which is reflected on the website, in view of above, we consider that nothing survives in this Application." ...

5. The Adjudicating Authority having already observed and noticed that the

claim of the Applicant is to be treated as contingent till the judgment is

pronounced in the suit, the claim shall remain contingent.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 571 of 2022 Page 2 of 3

6. We see no reason to take any other view of the matter. In the event the suit

of the Appellant is decreed, the claim being contingent, the Appellant shall be

entitled claim from the Successful Resolution Applicant.

With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

(Justice Ashok Bhushan) Chairperson

(Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy) Member(Judicial)

(Mr. Barun Mitra) Member(Technical) Akc/Nn.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 571 of 2022 Page 3 of 3