Case Law Details
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Sandeep Goel RP (NCLAT Delhi)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi has recently made a notable judgment in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Goel RP, which has significant implications for financial institutions and the insolvency resolution process in India. The case revolved around the rejection of a financial claim by Kotak Mahindra Bank (the Appellant), which was filed 738 days after the deadline and subsequent to the approval of a resolution plan. This article delves into the details of the NCLAT judgment, its basis, and its implications for creditors in insolvency proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
The crux of the matter lies in the timing and manner in which Kotak Mahindra Bank attempted to assert its claim against the debtor company, well after the resolution process had been set in motion and a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for the debtor commenced on July 9, 2021, with a public announcement following on July 14, 2021. The resolution plan received approval on December 24, 2022. However, Kotak Mahindra Bank filed its claim in August 2023, based on an assignment from PNB Housing related to a mortgage.
The Adjudicating Authority, relying on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited Vs. Mukul Kumar, dismissed the bank’s application for condonation of the 738-day delay and for the admission of its claim. The NCLAT upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the timelines prescribed under the insolvency and bankruptcy code (IBC) and the principle of due diligence.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
