Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The Ld. Counsel for the R1 has emphatically submitted that revised Form-B is not a fresh claim but only a revised claim which includes lease rental for CIRP period. The Ld counsel for the R1 has cited the various Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Tribunal to supplement his case has given below:

 Prerna Singh Vs. Committee of Creditors, Xalta Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd and ors, NCLAT, Contempt case (AT) No. 03 of 2020 and CA(AT)(Ins) No. 104 of 2019 held at para 19 to 21:

21. Thus, we find no substance in the argument that the rent cannot be included in the CIRP costs."  M V Projects Vs. Divya Jyoti Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. &Ors., NCLAT CA(AT) (Ins) No. 481 of 2018 held at para 25:

"In view of the aforesaid provision, if the Appellant has supplied the goods during the period of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' to keep the company as a going concern, it was the duty of the 'Resolution Professional' to include such cost towards 'Resolution Process Cost' for payment in favour of Appellant for non-inclusion of the same, it can be held that the 'Resolution Plan' in question is in violation of Section 30(2) (a) of the 'I&B Code'."

 Alok Kaushik Vs. BhuvaneshwariRamnathan, Supreme Court, (2021) 5 SCC 787 held at para 18 to 20:

"18.In a recent judgment in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs Amit Gupta and Others 2, this Court clarified the jurisdiction of the NCLT/NCLAT under Section 60(5)(c) 3 of the following terms :

(SCC para 69)

69. The institutional framework under the IBC contemplated the establishment of a single forum to deal with matters of insolvency, which were distributed earlier across multiple fora...Therefore, considering the text of Section 60(5)(c) and the interpretation of similar provisions in other insolvency related statutes, NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes, which arise solely from or which relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. However, in doing do, we issue a note of caution to the NCLT and NCLAT to ensure that they do not usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of other courts, tribunals and fora when the dispute is one which does not arise solely from or relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. The nexus with the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor must exist." (emphasis supplied)"

n. Now let us review the citations submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1;

 M V Projects Vs. Divya Jyoti Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., NCLAT CA(AT) (Ins) No. 481 of 2018;

We agree that Resolution Process costs has to be included in the plan and based on input available with the Resolution Professional, the RP has admitted the claim based on input provided by the Respondent No.1 even after lapse of 90 days after the due date submission of the claim by the Respondent No.1 (i.e. 13th January, 2021) of Rs. 95 lacs out of Rs. 1.05 Crore approx. It is also very much clear that the Corporate Debtor has not derived any income from these leased assets and the lease assets have also ended its life as per details provided at page 7 Annexure 1 of the Written submission of the Appellant in the last column of the Annexure. The Fair Market Value of these equipments amounting to Rs. 43.54 lacs have already been admitted by the Resolution Professional as stated above.  Alok Kaushik Vs. Bhuvaneshwari Ramnathan, Supreme Court, (2021) 5 SCC 787 It is very much clear from para 69 cited by the Respondent No.1 that the NCLT and NCLAT is to ensure that they do not supplant the legitimate jurisdiction of other courts when the dispute does not solely relate to insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. Apparently it looks that as far as cost aspect are concerned in terms of the provisions of the Code as stated above and based on claims submitted in response to public announcement, the Resolution Professional has covered substantially the entire amount. However, if the interpretation of contractual clauses are involved then it is not under the jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority to interpret and comment without ascertaining the approval of CoC as it is their commercial wisdom of CoC which cannot be taken away by the Adjudicating Authority on the commercial issues or on commercial terms and conditions, it may be done by a Civil Court.  Executive Engineer, Uttar Gujarat VIJ Company Ltd Vs. Mr. Devang P Samapat, RP of M/s. Kanoovi Food Pvt. Ltd. NCLAT, CA(AT) (Ins) No. 371 & 372 of 2021 Para 11 has cited by the Respondent No.1 in the above Judgment relates to electricity consumption which is already a part of Regulation 32 towards essential supplies. The claim in this case is not in respect of essential supplies of electricity. Hence, this citations is not applicable to this case.