The Resolution Professional cannot admit claims arising from non-performance of contracts beyond stipulated timeframes, highlighting the need for judicial adjudication of such claims.

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode) Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘ IBC ’ in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 30.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Impugned Order ’) passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench- II) in I.A. No. 1162/2024 in CP (IB) No. 2581(ND)/2019 . By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the I.A. No. 1162/2024 filed by the Appellant-M/s CSA Corporation Pvt. Ltd. against the Resolution Professional-Respondent for rejection of their claim of Rs. 18,50,63,527/- in the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

2. Coming to the factual matrix of the matter and the salient sequence of events, it is relevant to note that the Appellant-M/s CSA Corporation Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a Consortium Agreement with the Corporate Debtor-UM Green Lighting Pvt. Ltd. on 12.10.2016 followed by a subsequent Joint Venture Agreement on 01.05.2017. This Consortium had bagged contracts for four street-lighting projects which however could not be completed following which the Appellant sent a Notice for Non-Performance to the Corporate Debtor on 20.09.2021. On 15.11.2021 the Appellant also filed a criminal complaint against the Corporate Debtor for over-invoicing and false invoicing under the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Dimapur alleging that the Corporate Debtor had failed to perform their contractual obligations and for abandoning the contractual projects. Prior to issue of the Notice for Non-Performance by the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor had sought its outstanding dues from the Appellant on 26.04.2021. Instead of making any payments, on 24.12.2021, the Appellant instead issued Legal Notice to the Corporate Debtor stating that the right of the Corporate Debtor with respect to the four contracts stood terminated and the Corporate Debtor was directed to refund all amounts which had been paid as advance along with interest and other charges.

3. In the meantime, on 13.12.2021, the Corporate Debtor was admitted into insolvency under a Section 9 Application filed by an Operational Creditor following which an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed. Following the commencement of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, public announcement was made by IRP inviting claims on 17.12.2021. The last date for filing claims lapsed on 27.12.2021. The 90 days period for filing claim came to an end on 13.03.2022. However, no claims had been filed by the Appellant until the lapse of 90 days period. Subsequently, on 05.06.2023, the Resolution Professional ( “RP” in short) after taking note that the Appellant owed a liability to the Corporate Debtor, issued a Demand Notice under Section 8 of IBC to the Appellant for making a payment of Rs 9.35 Cr. alongwith proof of claim basis the invoices raised by the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant however did not reply to this Demand Notice and a Section 9 application was thereafter filed by the RP on 25.07.2023 against the Appellant. Soon thereafter, the Appellant proceeded to file their claim in Form-F before the RP on 12.09.2023 for Rs 18.50 Cr in the CIRP proceedings of the Corporate Debtor. This claim was rejected by the RP on 15.09.2023. Aggrieved by the rejection of their claim, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

4. Making his submissions, Shri Gaurav Mitra, Ld. Sr. Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Corporate Debto