Goodwood Products vs M/S. Kitply Industries Limited

Goodwood Products ....Appellant Vs. M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd. ...Respondent For Appellant: Mohammed Shafi. E, Mr. Raj Carolin. V, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Mr. Karan Kohli, Advocates.

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

24.02.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.06.2021 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati

Bench, Guwahati by which Application under Section 9 filed by the Appellant

has been rejected. Appellant claim to be the Operational Creditor and when

CIRP proceeding was initiated against the Corporate Debtor, he filed his claim

belatedly. Resolution Professional has refused to accept the claim and IA 22 of

2019 was preferred by the Appellant before the NCLT challenging the rejection

of the claim which was dismissed on 10.05.2019. The Appellant thereafter

preferred Application under Section 9. The Adjudicating Authority took the

view that Resolution Plan against the Corporate Debtor has already been

approved by the Adjudicating Authority and all claims extinguished, hence

Application under Section 9 cannot be entertained. The Adjudicating Authority

has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ghanashaym

Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Through the Authorised Signatory vs. Edelweiss 2

Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director & Ors.- (2021) SCC

Online 330" as well as "Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs.

Satish Kumar Gupta and Others- (2020) 8 SCC 531". The Adjudicating

Authority has taken the view that when the Resolution Plan was approved

much before the filing of Application under Section 9, all the claims stand

extinguished including the claim of the Appellant, hence, no relief can be

claimed in Application under Section 9.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ghanashaym Mishra" (supra) is distinguishable.

He submits that in the present case there is a decree in favour of the Appellant

and the claim should survive he being a decree holder.

4. We are of the view that the claim based on the decree is claim within the

meaning of IBC and the said claim in the CIRP proceedings has to be treated

to have been extinguished after the approval of the Resolution Plan. We do not

find any ground to not follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Ghanashaym Mishra" (supra) in the facts of the present case. No error has

been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in following the said judgment

dismissing the Application of the Appellant. There is no merit in the Appeal.

The Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 185 of 2022