M.M.T.C Limited vs B D Overseas And Fiscal Services Limited ...

IN THE MATTER OF: M.M.T. Ltd. ...Appellant (s)

Versus

BD Overseas and Fiscal Services Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent (s)

Present: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Jyoti Kr. Chaudhary, Ms. Tejaswini Chandrasekhar, Mr. Jatin Chaddha, Ms. Sanskruti Jinwal, Ms. Sunidi, Advocates. For Respondent (s) :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

15.05.2026: This appeal is against an impugned order dated

02.09.2024 passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad

in CP (IB) No. 203 of 2019 filed by the appellant herein under Section 60(5)(C)

IBC, 2016 r/w Rule 11 of NCLT rules, 2016 wherein I.A. No. 402 of 2023 was

dismissed. The applicant sought the following prayers in the said I.A:

"a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to allow the present application;

b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the Resolution Plan filed by M/s Steel Cube India, LLP approved vide order dated 20.9.2022 in IA/954/2020 in CP (IB) 203 of 2019 and further direct the Resolution Professional of BD Overseas to consider the claim of the Applicant.

c) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of the present application this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the implementation of the Resolution Plan filed by M/s Steel Cube

Cont'd.../ -2-

India, LLP approved vide order dated 20.9.2022 in IA/954/2020 in CP (IB) 203 of 2019.

d) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly pass an order admitting the claim of the Applicant of Rs.2,16,22,292/- (Rupees Two Cores Sixteen Lacs Twenty-Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Two only) plus interest @13.75% per annum.

e) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the present application"

2. We have heard the arguments and gone through the impugned order.

The appellant seeks to challenge the approval order vide application bearing

I.A. No. 402 of 2023 as also sought admission of its claim of

Rs.2,16,22,292/-. Qua the prayer of setting aside of the approval order of the

resolution plan, the Ld. NCLT held it is not the appropriate forum to grant

such prayer and the appellant ought to have file an appeal before this

Tribunal. We agree to this.

3. Qua admission of claims, we have perused the paragraph 9 of the

impugned order as under:

"9. We have heard both the sides and have perused the records produced before us. CIRP commenced vide order dated 20.01.2020. Form A was published by the RP in Economic Times and Loksatta Jansatta and the last date to file claim was 26.02.2020. Apparently, the Applicant herein has never flied any claim before the RP. Further, no application was filed by the Applicant herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim before the RP."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2170 of 2024 -3-

4. Admittedly, Form-A was published by the Resolution Professional in

two newspapers and the last date of filing of the claim was 26.02.2020. The

appellant has never filed its claim before the Resolution Professional and

even did not file any application before the Ld. NCLT for condonation of delay

in filing its claim before the Resolution Professional.

5. The main thrust of argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant

before us is no individual notice was given to the appellant and hence, the

appellant was not made aware of invitation of claims by the Resolution

Professional, hence it failed to file claim in time. Admittedly the Appellant did

not file any application for condonation of delay either.

6. Reference is made by the appellant counsel to Regulation 6A of the

IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations,

2016 but such Regulation 6A came into force only on 16.09.2022, hence, the

appellant cannot get its benefit thereof.

7. Considering the submissions, we find no illegality in the impugned

order. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly is dismissed. Pending

I.A. Nos. 8047, 8105, 8106, 8107 of 2024 are also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) SA/rr

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2170 of 2024