The NCLAT, New Delhi expounded that as per the CIRP Regulations 2016, the Resolution Professional (“RP”) can change the amount if additional material comes up. It was further ruled that the arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Appellant himself and therefore, later Appellant cannot deny being bound by the arbitral award. Hence, the RP rightly decided the claim amount based on the arbitral award.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal has been filed against the order of the NCLT vide which the application of the Appellant filed against the decision of the RP to reduce the claim of the Appellant was rejected.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was argued that the RP has no jurisdiction to change/reduce the claim amount once the claim has been admitted.
It was further contended that the RP has wrongly relied on the arbitral award as the award would have been relevant only if the Appellant would have initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount.
Observations of the Tribunal:
It was noted that as per the email sent by RP, the claim was only provisionally admitted and the same was subject to verification. Further, as per the CIRP Regulations 2016, the RP can change the amount if additional material comes up.
It was further observed that the arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Appellant himself and therefore, later Appellant cannot deny being bound by the arbitral award.
The decision of the Tribunal:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the order of the NCLT was upheld and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Intec Capital Ltd. V. Uday Kumar Bhaskar Bhat
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Barun Mitra (Technical Member)
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 361 of 2023
Advocates for Appellant: Adv. Mr. PBA Srinivasan, Mr. Dhruv Parwal, Mr. V. Aravind, Ms. Srishti Bansal, Mr. Sumit Swami
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
