Bank Files Claim After 738 Days Of Delay And Post Approval Of Resolution Plan, NCLAT Delhi Upholds Rejection Of Claim
Pallavi Mishra
31 Jan 2024 10:55 AM IST
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has upheld the rejection of a claim submitted by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., which was submitted to the Resolution Professional after delay of 738 days and post approval of resolution...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Shri Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Shri Arun Baroka (Technical Member), has upheld the rejection of a claim submitted by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., which was submitted to the Resolution Professional after delay of 738 days and post approval of resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor.
Background Facts
On 09.07.2021, Sarvottam Realcon Pvt Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) by the NCLT. The public announcement for submission of claims was made by the Interim Resolution Professional on 14.07.2021. Thereafter, on 24.12.2022 a Resolution Plan was approved for the Corporate Debtor by the Committee of Creditors.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (“Appellant Bank”) submitted its claim before the Resolution Professional in August 2023 after a delay of 738 days and the claim was therefore rejected.
The Appellant Bank filed an application before the NCLT seeking direction to the Resolution Professional to admit its claim and for condonation of delay of 738 days in filing the claim. The NCLT on 21.11.2013 dismissed the application. The Appellant Bank filed an appeal before the NCLAT against the order dated 21.11.2013.
One of the home buyers of Corporate Debtor's real estate project had mortgaged a flat with PNB Housing. Later, on 04.03.2023 PNB Housing assigned the debt to the Appellant Bank. The Appellant Bank contended that in the records of the Corporate Debtor payments received from the home-Buyer were reflected, but the Resolution Professional did not notice the claim nor mentioned it in the Information Memorandum.
The Resolution Professional argued that Appellant Bank is claiming his right on basis of assignment from PNB Housing and it is not a financial creditor in a class. The Appellant ought to have exercised due diligence prior to taking assignment since by that time resolution plan was already approved.
NCLAT Verdict
The Bench took the view that the NCLT has rightly dismissed the application since the claim was submitted post approval of the resolution plan.
“In the facts of the present case, when the Resolution Plan was already approved on 24.12.2022 and claim was filed by the Appellant only in August, 2023, we see no error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the application. There is no merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.”
The appeal has been dismissed.
Case title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v Sandeep Goel RP for Sarvottam Realcon Pvt Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 140 of 2024
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Yashika Sharma, Yamini Naruka, Advocates for RP Sandeep Goel, RP.
