The CIRP period was extended by 90 days by the Adjudicating Authority at the instance of Resolution Professional would not clothe the Appellants with a right to claim consideration of their claims which stage admittedly was over – Madanlal Balmukund Karwa Company Vs. New Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. &Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

The IRP has rejected the claim of Appellant which was not substantiated by documentary evidence on 21st May, 2019. The Adjudicating Authority passed order extending CIRP period by 90 days on 11th September, 2019. Subsequently, the prayer of Appellant seeking direction from the Adjudicating Authority in the name of Resolution Professional to accept the supporting document in support of the claim came to be turned down in the face of delay and latches on the part of Appellant. NCLAT held that it is manifestly clear that the timelines have not been adhered to in so far as preferring of claims and submitting of proof to establish such claims is concerned. The fact that the CIRP period was extended by 90 days by the Adjudicating Authority at the instance of Resolution Professional would not clothe the Appellants with a right to claim consideration of their claims which stage admittedly was over. Moreover, subsequent rejection of I.As declining to allow proof to be adduced in support of claims at the hugely belated stage leaves no room for contending that opportunity of submitting the claims and adducing proof in support thereof was not provided to the Appellants. Since the CIRP has crossed the culminating point with approval of the Resolution Plan of ‘Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd.’, the Appellants cannot be allowed to reopen the CIRP and direct de novo exercise after the CIRP period has come to an end.

Related Posts

Scroll to Top