Nandini Constructions vs Tantia Construction Limited & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question is whether the reasoning here supports a ratio. The Tribunal's reasons are: the Appellant's remedy against a rejection of its claim by the Resolution Professional lay in approaching the Adjudicating Authority by a specific application seeking admission of the claim, and it did not take that course; and, given that omission and the implementation of the approved plan, the Tribunal found no infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Those are stated reasons, so a ratio can be extracted. NO_RATIO: The order contains reasoning, so a ratio is extractable, but I have answered in the required form only for the points the Tribunal actually decided. Stated as the decision's principles: Where a Resolution Professional rejects a creditor's claim in the corporate insolvency resolution process, the creditor's recourse is to apply to the Adjudicating Authority for directions admitting the claim, and a creditor who does not take that course cannot later challenge an approved resolution plan on the ground of the rejection of that claim. An appeal against an order approving a resolution plan will not be entertained in appellate jurisdiction where no error is shown in the order of the Adjudicating Authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Nandini Constructions ...Appellant
Versus
Tantia Constructions Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Ms. Anindita Pujari, Mr. Azad Bansala and Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Rony O John, Mr. Piyush S., Mr. Deep Roy, Mr. Anshdeep Singh and Mr. Dhaval Salva, Advocates for R-2.
ORDER
18.08.2022: Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been
filed against order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata approving the
Resolution Plan filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant.
2. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the
Corporate Debtor by order dated 13.03.2019. The Appellant before us had
filed a claim before the Resolution Professional, which claim was rejected and
communicated by email dated 02.07.2019 to the Appellant. Subsequently,
the Resolution Plan came in the CIRP which was approved by the CoC in
February, 2020 and consequently, the Adjudicating Authority has also
approved the Resolution Plan on 24.02.2020. Appellant aggrieved by the order
of the Adjudicating Authority has filed this Appeal.
Cont'd.../ 2
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that after receipt of one line
email from the Resolution Professional rejecting its claim, the Appellant
submitted detailed facts and figures and asked for detailed reasons for
rejection. It is submitted that Appellant has also filed caveat before the
Adjudicating Authority.
4. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant
and perused the record.
5. The Resolution Professional vide its communication dated 02.07.2019
stated:
"This is to inform you that Resolution Professional has verified your claim based on the records available with Corporate Debtor & supporting document provided by you. Based on such verification, out of the total claim amount filed in Form B, the Resolution Professional has admitted NIL amount."
6. When the claim application of the Appellant was rejected by the
Resolution Professional, the course open for the Appellant was to approach
the Adjudicating Authority by filing an appropriate application seeking for
direction for admission of its claim. The said course was not adopted by the
Appellant and in the meantime Resolution Plan was approved by the
Adjudicating Authority by order dated 24.02.2020. Learned counsel for the
Respondent submits that the plan has already been implemented. The Appeal
has been filed in May, 2022. We are of the view that there is no infirmity
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 2022 3
which may warrant us to interfere with the impugned order in our Appellate
jurisdiction. There is no error in the order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority approving the Resolution Plan. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 2022
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