Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs Udayraj Patwardhan (NCLAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Resolution Professional cannot entertain any claims arising after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ( CIRP ) as it was a clear law that Resolution Professional could only entertain claims due and filed w.r.t. CIRP commencement date and not due to subsequent event, for which claimant might have other legal remedy.
Held: Appellant-company was a wholly owned Government of Gujarat Undertaking, engaged in bulk purchase and sale of power on behalf of state-owned distribution licensees in Gujarat, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Adel Landmarks Private Limited ( Corporate Debtor ) for setting up a wind power project in Gujarat. Appellant alleged that the Corporate Debtor failed to supply power since March 2015, which constituted a ‘default’ under the PPA. A default notice and a termination notice were issued, seeking compensation of Rs. 3.36 Crores. No response was received from the Corporate Debtor. In the interim, Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, a Financial Creditor, filed a petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to trigger CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. NCLT commenced CIRP against the Corporate Debtor with a moratorium under Section 14 of IBC. Later the Appellant filed a petition before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission ( GERC ) for recovery of the amount owed under the terminated PPA. Appellant was not informed of the CIRP initiation until 13.01.2022. After becoming aware of the CIRP proceedings, Appellant withdrew the GERC petition with liberty. Thereafter, Appellant filed an application before the NCLT, Delhi (Adjudicating Authority), seeking a direction for the RP to reconsider its claim of Rs. 3.36 Crores. NCLT rejected the claim stating it was filed after the initiation of CIRP. Appellant filed the appeal under Section 61 of IBC to file his claims at any time before approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The claims arising after the CIRP should not be deemed discharged. Appellant submitted that the Impugned order was incorrect as his claims were filed much before the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC or by the Adjudicating Authority therefore it should have been considered and further the Adjudicating Authority ignored its own order passed directing the Respondent to consider all the claims without rejecting on account of delay. It was held that tmain reason for that rejection of the claim by the Respondent was that appellant terminated PPA vide termination notice dated 25.11.2019 which was during operation of the moratorium, therefore, appellant was barred from taking any action by Section 14 of the Code. Once the moratorium was placed, several restrictions automatically get imposed and which could be read from the Section itself. Section 14 of the Code. Section 14(1) clearly stipulated that any proceedings against the Corporate Debtor would be prohibited. Similarly, Section 14(1)(b) described that any encumbrance or alienation of legal rights or benefit interest of the Corporate Debtors were also restricted and prohibited. There was a clear law that Resolution Professional could only entertain claims due and filed w.r.t. CIRP commencement date and not due to subsequent event, for which claimant might have other legal remedy. The alleged compensation claims of Rs. 3.26 Crores was due to termination of PPA after initiation of CIRP, which was filed after huge delay of 849 days. It was settled law that the Resolution Professional could collate and verify claims w.r.t. CIRP date and therefore any claims arising subsequent to CIRP date couldn’t be entertained by Resolution Professional.
