Whenever any claim is filed after extended period provided in CIRP Regulation 12(2), the RP should have rejected the claim. The Legislation has not provided any discretion to RP for admitting the claim after the extended period – Mukul Kumar RP of KST Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi
In this case, the Adjudicating Authority held that the RP should not have summarily rejected the claim of the Respondent on the ground that claim has not been filed within time and the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC.
NCLAT has held that with the Regulation 8, 12, 12(2) and 13, it is apparent that the IRP/RP can accept the claim as per extended period as provided in Regulation 12(2). It means after extended period of 90 days of the insolvency commencement date the IRP/ RP is not obliged to accept the claim. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the Regulations are directory but not mandatory and for this purpose, placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brilliant Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [2018] ibclaw.in 35 SC. In this Judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the provision of Section 12(A) with the Regulation 30 and held that the stipulation in the Regulations can only be construed as directory depending on the facts of each case. There is no ratio of the Judgment that the Regulations are directory and not mandatory. With the aforesaid, we are of view that whenever any claim is filed after extended period provided in Regulation 12(2) of the Regulations, the RP should have rejected the claim. The Legislation has not provided any discretion to RP for admitting the claim after the extended period.(p29-30)
