Paresh Govindbhai Hirpara And Anr vs Prabhat Jain

IN THE MATTER OF: Paresh Govindbhai Hirpara & Anr. ...Appellants

Versus

Prabhat Jain Resolution Professional of Vikas Procon Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Palash S. Singhai and Mr. Harshal Sareen, Advocates

For Respondent : Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Mr. Aditya Sharan and Mr. Pratik Pandey, Advocates

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

05.09.2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as

Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional.

This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by Adjudicating

Authority dated 06.12.2023 by which I.A. No.3991 of 2023 filed by the

Appellant for accepting the claim in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor has

been rejected.

The brief facts of the case are that the CIRP against the Corporate

Debtor commenced on 19.04.2023. The Appellant's case is that amount of

total Rs.40 lakhs was given to Corporate Debtors, which is reflected by the

Bank transaction of HDFC Bank. After the commencement of CIRP initially

claim form was filed in Form 'C' claiming of Rs. 40 lakhs as financial debt with

interest. RP acknowledged the receipt of the claim form and RP by letter dated 03.07.2013 called upon the Applicant No.2 to file its claim in an appropriate

form format.

On 08.07.2023, Appellant No.2 vide its email forwarded the agreement

dated 01.09.2022 and police complaints to the RP and thereafter claim was

filed in CA. The amounts which were transferred in favour of the Corporate

Debtor was remitted by Applicant No.2. Whereas the MoU mentions the

allotment of a shop bearing No. G-34 in the favour of the Applicant No.1. The

RP having not admitted their claim, I.A. was filed before the Adjudicating

Authority seeking a direction to accept the claim which stands rejected.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the RP having not

denied the receipt of Rs. 40 lakhs and there was no occasion to reject the

claim. It is submitted that earlier claim submitted in Form 'C' cannot be

reason to reject the claim which was submitted in Form CA with appropriate

materials to show that Shop G-34 was allotted. It is submitted that the

Appellant was Allottee, who got the amount paid from the Appellant No.2 who

is a relative Brother-in-Law. Hence, there no dispute could be raised with

regard to Appellant being allotee. Counsel for the RP submitted that earlier

the Appellant filed a claim in Form CA claiming to be financial debt i.e. loan

given to the Corporate Debtor and subsequently in Form CA they are claiming

as a allottee. It is submitted that in view of inconsistent case taken by the

Appellant, RP did not commit in error in rejecting the claim. It is however,

submitted that the receipt of the amount of Rs.40 lakhs is not denied by the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 362 of 2024 2 of 4 RP which is reflected in the record of the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted

that there was a delay in submitting Form CA.

We have considered submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

The CIRP in the present case commenced on 19.04.2023 and Appellant

after coming to know about the CIRP filed its claim on 09.06.2023 in Form C.

Claim in Form CA was subsequently filed on 31.07.2023 and second Form CA

was filed on 09.08.2023. In view of the above dates, we are of the view that it

cannot be said that there was any such delay in the claim to be rejected on

the ground of delay. Form A was published on 04.05.2023 and claim in Form

C was filed on 09.06.2023. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the

submissions of the counsel for the Respondent that there was a delay in filing

the claim. Now, coming to the two claim form i.e. Form C and Form CA. It is

well settled that merely format of the claim is not decisive. The first Form C

where amount was claimed as financial debt, there is no other material on

record to indicate that any kind of loan was given neither there is a loan

agreement or ledger entry to show any amount of loan. Form CA, which was

filed by the Appellant jointly was supported by an MoU which was executed

by Ex-directors and signed by the Ex-directors and where the unit number

was also mentioned.

We do not find any justification on the decisions of the RP in rejecting

the claim filed in Form CA when the payment is not disputed and in the claim

form Shop No. G-34 was claimed, which is also reflected in the MoU entered Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 362 of 2024 3 of 4 between the Applicant and signed by the Directors of the Corporate Debtor.

There is no reason to disbelieve the claim of the Appellant that they are

allottee. We thus, are of the view that Adjudicating Authority committed error

in not accepting the claim of the Appellant. The order impugned is set aside.

The I.A. No. 3991 of 2023 is allowed and the Appellants are held to be allottee

of the unit G-34.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 362 of 2024 4 of 4