Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2021) 12 NCLAT CK 0030

J N Arora Trading Company vs Ashok Kriplani, Resolution Professional Of Nibula Print and Pack Pvt. Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 14 December 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Jarat Kumar Jain, Member (J) · Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1036 of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 297 words
1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against order dated 27.10.2021, by which the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bench-II, New Delhi has rejected the application filed by the Appellant.

2.

CIRP proceedings were initiated against the Corporate Debtor by order dated 11.12.2018. Public Announcement was made by the Resolution Professional inviting the claims on 17.12.2018. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the application filed for extension of CIRP period for another 90 days. Subsequently, the Committee of Creditors approved the Resolution Plan on 09.11.2019. The Appellant filed his claim on 29.10.2020 i.e. much after the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Professional refused to accept the claim of the Appellant. Appellant filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority, which has been rejected.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant can submit its claim till the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority. We do not find any substance in above submission of Learned Counsel of the Appellant. He further submits that with regard to certain claims Resolution Professional himself has requested to Adjudicating Authority to accept belatedly. He has referred to an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority regarding consideration of Government claims. With regard to Government claims there is different obligation of the Resolution Professional and to fulfil the said obligation in event he has made request to the Adjudicating Authority, we see that no parity can be claimed by the Appellant with regard to such an order. It is also apparent from the record that Appellant has submitted his proof of claim only on 12.08.2021.

In view of the aforesaid, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting such claim. We do not find any merit in this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.