ORDER :

In both the appeals as common question of law is involved, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The appellant ‘M/s. Prasad Gempex’ filed a claim as ‘Financial Creditor’. The ‘Resolution Professional’ rejected the claim. ‘M/s. Prasad Gempex’ thereafter claimed to be an ‘Operational Creditor’ on suggestion of the ‘Resolution Professional’ but the same has also been rejected.

3. According to the appellant ‘M/s. Prasad Gempex’ had filed ‘Expression of Interest’ before the ‘Resolution Professional’ but it was not taken care by the ‘Committee of Creditors’. In this background, the appellant filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Single Bench, Chennai and by impugned order dated 22nd May, 2018, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application.

4. According to the respondents the ‘Resolution Professional’ had rejected ‘Expression of Interest’ and it was not placed before the ‘Committee of Creditors’. It is not in dispute that the so called ‘resolution plan’ met the criteria.

5. In this appeal the appellant has assailed all the rejection of its claim as ‘financial creditor’, rejection of its claim as ‘operational creditors’ and rejection of its claim as ‘Resolution Applicant’.

6. The connected appeal has been preferred by ‘SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited’ (Financial Creditor) against the order dated 23rd July, 2018. By the said order, the application preferred by the appellant ‘SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited’ to set aside the decision of the ‘Resolution Professional’ dated 15th April, 2018 for refusing, re-calculating or reducing the claim in respect of the ‘corporate debtor’ has not been entertained. Thus, the rejection/reduction of the claim by ‘Resolution Professional’ by order dated 15th April, 2018 reached a finality. The question arises for consideration in both the appeals is whether the ‘Resolution Professional’ has jurisdiction to decide or reject the claim of one or other ‘Financial Creditor’ or ‘Operational Creditor’.

7. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Appellate Tribunal in ‘M/s. Dynepro Private Limited’ vs. Mr. V. Nagarajan – Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 229 of 2018 etc.’ The Appellate Tribunal by its judgment dated 30th January, 2019 held that ‘Resolution Professional has no jurisdiction to decide the claim of one or other creditor, including ‘Financial Creditor’, ‘Operational Creditor’, ‘Secured Creditor’ or ‘unsecured Creditor’. Referring to sub-section (6) of Section 60 of the ‘I&B Code’, this Appellate Tribunal further observed that after completion of the period of moratorium, a suit or application can be filed against the ‘Corporate Debtor’. Relevant portion of Section 60 is quoted below:-

“60. (1) The Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located.

xxx xxx xxx

(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of—

(a) any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person;

(b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries situated in India; and

(c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation specified for any suit or application by or against a corporate debtor for which an order of moratorium has been made under this P