AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial)]
28.07.2025: This appeal is filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor namely, M/s Earthcon Universal Infratech Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 02.05.2024 by which IA No. 5144 of 2023, filed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) has been disposed of by referring the prayer made in the application to the CoC for consideration in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of of GNIDA vs Prabhjit Singh Soni Civil Appeal no. 7590-7591 of 2023.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has committed an error in referring the prayer made by the authority for revision of its claim to the CoC who has no jurisdiction to deal with the revision of the claims.
Counsel for the appellant has contended that the duty of collation of claim and revision is of the RP and not of the CoC. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to Section 18 (b) and 25 (e) of the Code as per which the IRP has to perform the duty of receiving and collating all the claims submitted by the creditors pursuant to the public pronouncement made in terms of Sections 13 and 15 and the RP has to maintain an updated list of creditors.
He has also referred to Section 21 to contend that the IRP has to constitute the CoC only after collation of claims. He has also referred to Regulation 14(b) the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (for short ‘Regulations’) as per which the RP may revise the amount of claim already admitted on additional information. Regulation 14 (2) is more relevant to
resolve this controversy which is reproduced as under: “The interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, shall revise the amounts of claims admitted, including the estimates of claims made under sub-regulation (1), as soon as may be practicable, when he comes across additional information warranting such revision”.
He has also relied upon a decision of this court in the case of ‘Rajnish Jain vs. Manoj Kumar Singh- IRP (2021) 124 taxmaan.com 213(NCLAT) to argue that in the said case one of the issue was as to whether the CoC constituted under Section 21 of the I & B Code, 2016, could determine the status of a Financial or Operational Creditor? It is submitted that this court has held that the CoC has no jurisdiction to decide about the status of the creditor as the same is decided by the RP after collating the claims.
No one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, after hearing Counsel for the appellant and keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is an apparent error on the part of the Tribunal regarding the issue of revision of the admitted claim which has been referred to the CoC on the premise that in the past while deciding IA No.5238/ 2023, vide its order dated 02.05.2024, the objection as raised to the Resolution Plan was referred to the CoC.
In our considered opinion, the Ld. Tribunal should not have placed reliance on the order dated 02.05.2024 as the jurisdiction only vests with the RP for revision of the admitted claim that too on the basis of additional information, in terms of Regulation 14(b) of the Regulation.
Thus in view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending IA’s if any shall stand closed.