Resolution Professional Empowered To Keep Claims In Abeyance: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai Bench, comprising of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), while adjudicating an appeal filed in Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sravanam, has held that it is within the power of the Resolution Professional to keep the claim(s) submitted by the creditors in abeyance, for plurality of reasons. The Bench has permitted the Resolution Professional to keep a claim in abeyance, in respect of which arbitration proceedings were ongoing and the Corporate Debtor’s counter claim was pending determination before the Arbitral Tribunal.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In 2015, Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited (“Appellant”) and East Godavari Breweries Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) entered into a Brewing Agreement, wherein the Corporate Debtor allegedly failed to fulfil its obligations. The Appellant referred the matter to arbitration for recovery of the amount due from the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor had also filed a Counter Claim against the Appellant which is pending determination.

In the meanwhile, on 17.11.2021 the NCLT admitted the Corporate Debtor into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

On 01.12.2021, the Appellant submitted its claim of Rs. 33,98,16,438.35/- to the Resolution Professional in the capacity of a Financial Creditor, for the sum which is subject matter of pending arbitral proceedings.

The Resolution Professional did not accept the Appellant’s claim and rather kept the claim in abeyance. The reason being, the final admissible claim amount would depend on the outcome of the Arbitration Proceedings and the determination of Corporate Debtor’s Counter Claim.

The Appellant filed an application before the NCLT seeking direction to the Resolution Professional to admit the claim and include the Appellant in the Committee of Creditors.

On 02.12.2022, the NCLT dismissed the application on the ground that the Resolution Professional was justified in keeping the Claim in abeyance because of the pending Arbitration Proceedings and the Counter Claim of the Corporate Debtor.

The Appellant filed an appeal before the NCLAT against the Order dated 02.12.2022. The Resolution Professional opposed the appeal while contending that the outcome of arbitration proceedings would determine if the claim has to be accepted, partially accepted or rejected.

NCLAT VERDICT

The Bench opined that the determination of Corporate Debtor’s counter claim may end in a situation where the sum payable to Appellant might get set off. Thus, the Resolution Professional has acted within his powers by keeping the admission of claim in abeyance.

“In the instant case, the very fact that the Appellant’s Claim, cannot be admitted, till the counterclaim of the Corporate Debtor, is determined, which may end in set off of the Sum, payable to the Appellant / Petitioner, the plea of the Respondent / Resolution Professional, cannot be brushed aside and in an emergency and also when a situation arises, the Resolution Professional, is within his power and limit, to keep the Claims, in abeyance, for plurality of reasons.”

The Bench held that the Appellant’s plea to get the claim admitted, during the pendency of arbitration proceedings and the Corporate Debtor’s counter claim, cannot be acceded to in the eyes of law.

“As far as the present case is concerned, this Tribunal, on a careful consideration of the contentions advanced on behalf of the Appellant / Petitioner, and also this Tribunal, keeping in mind of the stand taken by the Respondent / Resolution Professional, before the Adjudicating Authority, vide its Counter to the IA (IBC) No. 155 / 2022 in CP (IB) No. 58 / 9 / AMR / 2021, comes to a consequent conclusion that the action of the Resolution Professional, in keeping the Claims, in abeyance, because of the pending Arbitration Proceedings, in regard to the counterclaim of the Corporate Debtor, only after which, the Claim Sum of the Appellant, can be determined with certainty, the Reliefs, prayed for, by the Appellant / Petitioner, pertaining to admission of the Claim, cannot be acceded to, in the eye of Law.”

The NCLT order dismissing the Appellant’s application has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed.

Case Title: Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sravanam

Case No.: Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 12 / 2023

Counsel For Appellant: Mr. Promod Nair, Senior Advocate For Mr. Amar Gupta, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order