Claim Future Claim/Unmatured Claim

If workers are not specifically includes in the list of Stakeholders, under Liquidation Regulation 31, they cannot be made a part of the SCC under Regulation 31A(1) of Liquidation Process Regulations – Varrsana Employee Welfare Association Vs. Anil Goel, The Liquidator of Varrsana Ispat Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that Regulation 31A flows from 31 and has to be read together and interpreted in its truest sense keeping the objective of the Code. Read congruously, Regulations 31 & 31A specify that when the Employees have no subsisting Claim, they cannot be included in the list of Stakeholders, thereby meaning that if the Workers are not specifically includes in the list of Stakeholders, under Regulation 31, they cannot be made a part of the SCC under Regulation 31A(1).
It also held that Claim of Gratuity is payable only at a future date in the happening of any event like retirement, resignation, termination, death, etc., and therefore, it cannot be construed as a Claim subsisting to be included in the list of Stakeholders and consequently seeking a place in the SCC.

If workers are not specifically includes in the list of Stakeholders, under Liquidation Regulation 31, they cannot be made a part of the SCC under Regulation 31A(1) of Liquidation Process Regulations – Varrsana Employee Welfare Association Vs. Anil Goel, The Liquidator of Varrsana Ispat Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Can a claim which was rejected by RP on documentary evidence basis be paid from Contingency Fund after approval of Resolution Plan? – S. Gopi, Proprietor, Goutham roadways Vs. M/s Empee Distilleries Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

In this case, the claim of the Applicant rejected by Resolution Professional on the basis of documentary evidence. The Adjudicating Authority denied to grant relief to make payment of the Applicant’s Claim from the Contingency Fund.
NCLAT held that Contingency Fund means a provision created in a Resolution Plan to avoid inevitable losses of creditors. It is made to include Liabilities arising which are uncertain and inevitable in nature or pending under verification. Maintaining a Claim does not necessitate or carry any nexus between the commission of a Default and the submission of a Claim. A Creditor can exercise his right to payment or to remedy for the matured, unmatured, secured, unsecured, Disputed or Undisputed Debts. In Code, 2016 to recover Debt from the Corporate Debtor, it is necessary for a Claimant to be a Creditor. While definite, identified or ascertained Claims can be easily accounted for, the problem lies when Claims which are either inevitable or contingent ones.
Further it held that the Contingency Fund is for the specific purpose to cater for Claims which were not Determined and settled finally, at the time of the Resolution Plan. There is a stipulated time frame as provided in the Resolution Plan and the Fund after meeting out the requirements of the Claims, ceased to exist. By no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that any Claim can be entertained after the Resolution Plan, was fully implemented and the new management of the Successful Resolution Applicant had taken over.

Can a claim which was rejected by RP on documentary evidence basis be paid from Contingency Fund after approval of Resolution Plan? – S. Gopi, Proprietor, Goutham roadways Vs. M/s Empee Distilleries Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Resolution Plan has dealt only the claims which were before the Resolution Professional and Resolution Plan has not dealt with any future claim of the Operational Creditors which may come subsequently after the approval of Plan – C.P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maan Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that Resolution Plan has dealt only the claims which were before the Resolution Professional and Resolution Plan has not dealt with any future claim of the Operational Creditors which may come subsequently after the approval of Plan. We do not file any substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that amount has to be withheld out of Rs. 1.5 Crores to take future statutory creditors. We thus do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing payment by Appellant by taking hair-cut of 52.51%. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly directed for making balance payment to the Applicants who are Respondents before us.

Resolution Plan has dealt only the claims which were before the Resolution Professional and Resolution Plan has not dealt with any future claim of the Operational Creditors which may come subsequently after the approval of Plan – C.P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maan Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

When the Corporate Debtor is a Guarantor and when the Corporate Guarantee has never been invoked prior to the commencement of the CIRP, as on the date of filing of the Claims, the Right to Payment has not accrued – IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Mr. Abhinav Mukherji – NCLAT New Delhi

The main issues which arise in these Appeals are:

(a) Whether the Adjudicating Authority was right in applying the ratio of Anuj Jain (IRP of Jaypee Infratech Ltd.) [2020] ibclaw.in 06 SC to the facts of the attendant case and holding that the Appellants are not Financial Creditors in view of the fact that there was no direct disbursal of amount to the Corporate Debtor/Guarantor.

(b) Whether an individual Homebuyer has the locus to challenge the admission of a Claim of another Creditor/Financial Creditor. Whether the filing of the said Application had to be done through the Authorized Representative (AR) only.

(c) Whether the Appellant can make a Claim on the basis of the Guarantee Deed which was never invoked pre-commencement of the CIRP, and remained uninvoked even as on the date of filing of the Claim, thereby meaning that Right to Payment has not yet accrued.

(d) Whether the Appellants are Related Parties of the Corporate Debtor. Whether the Appellants were in a position to control the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, to fall within the ambit of the definition of Related Party as defined under Section 5(24) of the Code.

When the Corporate Debtor is a Guarantor and when the Corporate Guarantee has never been invoked prior to the commencement of the CIRP, as on the date of filing of the Claims, the Right to Payment has not accrued – IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Mr. Abhinav Mukherji – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Future liabilities under Gas Sale Agreement which is not duly performed and as such not being covered under the definition of “claim” as defined in Sec. 3(6) of IBC – GAIL India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Milind Kasodekar, RP of Uttam Galva Steel Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

It is trite law that such verification is distinct from adjudication of claims, and an IRP is empowered to make a best estimate of the amount of the claim based on the information available under Regulation 14 of CIRP Regulations. It is the duty of an RP to verify each claim received, and admit the claim only to the extent it pertains to a period prior to the ICD based on the information available with them. Therefore, it is well within the powers of an IRP/RP to reject a claim or portion thereof for want of sufficient documents/evidence backing up such a claim.

Future liabilities under Gas Sale Agreement which is not duly performed and as such not being covered under the definition of “claim” as defined in Sec. 3(6) of IBC – GAIL India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Milind Kasodekar, RP of Uttam Galva Steel Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top