AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 225 of 2024: This is an application praying for condonation of 55 days’ delay in refiling the Appeal. The ground taken in the affidavit is that considerable time was taken in getting instructions, get signed copy of documents and cure the defects pointed out. It is submitted that the documents were to be received from Vapi, Gujrat, which took time. Cause shown sufficient, refiling delay is condoned. I.A. No.225 of 2024 stands disposed of.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 19.09.2023 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has upheld the decision of the Resolution Professional rejecting the claim filed by the Appellant. The CIRP was commenced and IRP issued public notice calling for submission of claims. Last date for submission of claims was 30.03.2021. Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC on 09.06.2022 and immediately application for approval of plan was filed before the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant filed claim on 24.11.2022, which was not accepted by the Resolution Professional and the appropriate information was sent to the Appellant. An I.A. was filed by the Appellant being I.A. No. 421/KB/2023, which has been rejected by the impugned order.
The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the timelines in Para 5, which are as follows:
“5. Let us understand the timeline from the date of initiation of CIRP till the date the claim was rejected.
List of
dates
Event
No. of days
from CIRP
30.12.2020
Initiation of CIRP
0
02.01.2021
Form A publication
3
24.11.2022
Claim filed before the
694
Resolution Professional
29.11.2022
Claim rejected
699
16.12.2022
Request for re- consideration of claim.
716
20.12.2022
Claim rejected
720
Admittedly, the claim was filed by the Appellant after approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC. We, thus, are of the view that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the I.A. filed by the Appellant. Appeal is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State Tax Officer (1) vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd.” and submits that only the ground of delay claim could not be rejected. In this reference judgment in the matter of “M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar and Anr., Civil Appeal No.7762 of 2023” is referred where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that after plan is approved by the CoC, there can be no delayed acceptance of the claim. We, thus, do not find any merit in the submission. Appeal is dismissed.