Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited-Assignee ... vs Mr. Sandeep Goel-Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 140 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A creditor who takes an assignment of a debt after the Committee of Creditors has approved a resolution plan, and who files its claim only after that approval, cannot have its late claim admitted in the corporate insolvency resolution process where the Adjudicating Authority has refused it on that footing; in such circumstances the rejection of the claim and refusal to condone the delay in filing it discloses no error.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 140 of 2024 & I.A. No. 445 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep Goel RP for Sarvottam Realcon Pvt Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : For Respondents : Mr. Ankur Mittal, Yashika Sharma, Yamini Naruka, Advocates for RP Sandeep Goel, RP
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.01.2024: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 21.11.2013 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority by which order the Adjudicating Authority has
rejected the Application filed by the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for
admission of its claim and for condonation of delay of 738 days in filing the
claim and for direction to RP to admit the claim.
3. In the present case, CIRP commenced on 09th July, 2021 and thereafter
public announcement was made on 14th July, 2021. The Resolution Plan was
received and was approved by the Committee of Creditors on 24.12.2022.
4. The Appellant's case is that he took assignment from earlier PNB
Housing with whom one flat was already mortgaged by the one home-buyer.
In the records of the Corporate Debtor, payments received from home-Buyer, 2
Atul Jaidka was already reflected but RP did not notice the claim nor
mentioned in the Information Memorandum. The Adjudicating Authority
relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. RPS
Infrastructure Limited Vs. Mukul Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021
has rejected the Application of the Appellant.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that Appellant is claiming
his right on basis of assignment dated 04th March, 2023 from PNB. Appellant
is not a financial creditor in a class and he ought to have due diligence prior
to taking assignment since by that time resolution plan was already approved.
6. In the facts of the present case, when the Resolution Plan was already
approved on 24.12.2022 and claim was filed by the Appellant only in August,
2023, we see no error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the
application. There is no merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.140/2024
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