The Indore Bench of the National Company La Tribunal ( NCLT ) observed that the interim resolution professional can continue to function till the date of appointment of the resolution professional.
One of the application has been filed by the State Bank of India seeking replacement of the Interim Resolution Professional Ms. Teena Saraswat Pandey ( with any other Insolvency Professional ) whereas another one was filed by the State Bank of India seeking direction against the IRP to admit the claim of the applicant in entirety and also to direct the IRP not to take further steps in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ( ‘CIRP’ ) of the Corporate Debtor until the time, the claim of the applicant is under pending verification and is not admitted in entirety.
The Senior Counsel, Navin Pahwa submitted that the IRP in the instant case has made a gross error in collating the claim of the applicant. Instead of collating and admitting it on the basis of the proof of debt submitted along with the claim as per Regulation 8 of the CIRP regulations, it went ahead with a baseless presumption that the ratio of sanctioned amount of SBI vis-à-vis other financial creditors will remain in the CoC as well.
It was also submitted that apart from being baseless and illegal, this presumption cannot be correct for the mere reason that the outstanding financial debt as on the date of Insolvency Commencement Date includes interest and penal interest which have been different for all the lenders.
The issue has arisen on account of the approach adopted by the IRP in admitting the claims of the aforesaid three financial creditors. Initially she kept part of the claim made by the each of these three creditors under verification. She appears to have admitted their respective claim as generated by the system and had not accepted the amount which was manually computed and included in the total claim.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, Technical Member and P Mohan Raj, Judicial Member observed that “In the matter before us, there is no conscientious between the CoC members to appoint the RP either by allowing the same IRP to function as an RP or by way of replacement. In such circumstances, the IRP can work as deemed RP. In view of these facts and keeping in view that the IRP has acted bona fide, we do not intent to replace her by appointing any other Insolvency Professional. Accordingly, the IRP is directed to proceed ahead and complete the CIRP as per the provisions of the Code.”
“The Resolution Plan has already been received and placed for consideration of the CoC. In such circumstances, we do not find any rational to replace the IRP at this stage. Further as pointed out by the learned counsels for Indian Bank and Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited, in view of the amended provisions of Section 16(5) the IRP can continue till the date of appointment of the Resolution Professional under Section 22” the Bench noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
