Claims for damages arising from a non-performance of a contract cannot be adjudicated by Resolution Professional (RP) | Claims for damages require consideration by a Court of competent authority for the claims to crystallise | Unadjudicated claims for damages cannot be said to be crystallised claims – CSA Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Rajiv Bhatnagar RP UM Green Lighting Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that: (i) IBC is a time bound process and the RP cannot be blamed for dealing with the claim within three days as the prescribed outer time-period to decide on the claims is only seven days. (ii) The claims are in respect of damages arising out of non-performance of contract which claims could not have been adjudicated upon by the RP at his level given the limited jurisdiction conferred on the RP by the IBC. (iii) In terms of CIRP Regulations 13(1)(B), claims received up to seven days before the date of meeting of creditors for voting on the resolution plan, the RP is to verify all such claims and categorise them as acceptable or non-acceptable for collation.

Related Posts:

If any Public depositor applies showing due of the debt claiming itself as operational creditor and the Resolution Professional or the Tribunal do not accept the claim on the ground that they are not financial creditor, we allow the appellant to raise the question before the Tribunal and if any adverse decision is given by the Tribunal, it will be open to the appellant to raise the issue before NCLAT- Hind Motors India Ltd. Vs. Adjudicating Authority NCLT, Chandigarh – NCLAT New Delhi

IBC-Case Laws-NCLAT
Scroll to Top