01/06/2022

The mere fact that the Authorised Representative of a creditor in a class have no role in receipt and verification of the claim of the creditors, it cannot be held to mean that creditors in a class have no right with regard to receipt and verification of their claim – Aashray Social Welfare Society & Ors. Vs. Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Issues which arise for consideration in this Appeal (i) Whether the application for impleadment filed by the Appellants before the Adjudicating Authority seeking impleadment deserve rejection on the ground that Authorised Representative of Homebuyers who are creditors in class is not representing the creditors in a class before the Adjudicating Authority? (ii) Whether the Appellants have no right to participate in adjudication of the claim of the Financial Creditors whose claim has been rejected by the IRP? (iii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting impleadment application filed by the Appellants?
NCLAT held that the clarification appended to Regulation 16A(5) is only clarification to the statutory scheme delineated under the Regulations and the Code that the Authorised Representative has no role in respect of verification of claim of a creditor in class. Can it be said that the Authorised Representative has no role in respect of verification of claims of creditors, therefore, the Financial Creditors in a class themselves have also no right with regard to receipt or verification of claims. The answer is obviously no. The Financial Creditor in class have every right to submit their claim giving proof of verification. The mere fact that the Authorised Representative of a creditor in a class have no role in receipt and verification of the claim of the creditors, it cannot be held to mean that creditors in a class have no right with regard to receipt and verification of their claim. The clarification as contained in Regulation 16A(5) has been read by the Adjudicating Authority to an extent which it never meant. The conclusion recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 23 on the basis of erroneous interpretation of Regulation 16A(5) resulted in a wrong conclusion that the creditors in a class have no role in receipt or verification of claims of creditors.

The mere fact that the Authorised Representative of a creditor in a class have no role in receipt and verification of the claim of the creditors, it cannot be held to mean that creditors in a class have no right with regard to receipt and verification of their claim – Aashray Social Welfare Society & Ors. Vs. Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the Resolution Professional is obliged to include the details of Homebuyers as reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor in the Information Memorandum, even though they have not filed their claim before the Resolution Professional within time? – Puneet Kaur Vs. K V Developers Pvt. Ltd., Through the RP – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the publication in the newspaper is normally done in the area where Corporate Debtor has its registered office and corporate office and there is every likelihood that all Homebuyers could not know within the fourteen days period allowed in Form-A to file their claim and practically Homebuyers who are hundreds in number neither come to know about the CIRP nor did they file their claim within the fourteen days’ time allowed. Even though, Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional are not obliged to include the name of such Homebuyers, who have not filed the claim within the time in their List of Creditors, but there is no reason for not collating the claims of such Homebuyers whose claims are reflected from the records of the Corporate Debtor, including their payments and allotment. Information Memorandum ought to have included the claim of those Homebuyers, who have not even filed their claims to correct liabilities of the Corporate Debtor for its appropriate resolution. The claim of those Homebuyers, who could not file their claims, but whose claims were reflected in the record of the Corporate Debtor, ought to have been included in the Information Memorandum and Resolution Applicant, ought to have been taken note of the said liabilities and should have appropriately dealt with them in the Resolution Plan. Non-consideration of such claims, which are reflected from the record, leads to inequitable and unfair resolution as is seen in the present case.

Whether the Resolution Professional is obliged to include the details of Homebuyers as reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor in the Information Memorandum, even though they have not filed their claim before the Resolution Professional within time? – Puneet Kaur Vs. K V Developers Pvt. Ltd., Through the RP – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top