ORDER

1. Mr. Shikhar Khandelwal a/w Mr. Punit Jain i/b Nipeksh Jain, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant present. Mr. Aman Jhawar i/b Gravitas Legal, Ld. Counsel for the Liquidator present.

2. APPEAL-28(MB)/2023: This Company Appeal is filed by Dahiben Gulab Shah under Section 42 of the IBC r/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 for seeking appropriate directions against the Liquidator to accept the claim of the Applicant against the Corporate Debtor as also to condone the delay in filing the claim before the Liquidator.

2.1 The Appellant states that the directors of the Corporate Debtor had approached the Appellant through brokers for hand loan for construction of the building saying that commencement certificate of building was obtained and if loan was granted then the same would be paid within six months with interest @33% p.a. Hence, the Appellant granted loan of ₹25,00,000/-, which was secured by (i) Promissory Note, (ii) MoU dated 22.02.2013, (iii) Allotment Letter, (iv) Agreement for sale, (v) Possession letter, (vi) Power of Attorney dated 22.02.2013 – in respect of Flat No. A-101, admeasuring 1110 sq. ft., 1st Floor in Radiance Splendour, Plot No. 64/64A, Sector-5, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai and (vii) cheques.

2.2 The Appellant further states that an Arbitration Award dated 10.05.2019 was obtained from the Arbitral Tribunal, directing the Corporate Debtor to pay an amount of ₹29,12,500/- along with interest @12% p.a. from 01.08.2013 till the date of payment.

2.3 The Appellant further states that when she took the Master Data of the Corporate Debtor for taking further steps to recover the amount under Arbitration Award, came to know that the Corporate Debtor is under Liquidation. Immediately, the Appellant submitted her claim to the Liquidator, however, the Liquidator did not accept the claim of the Appellant due to delay in submission of claim.

3. This bench heard the Counsel from both sides and perused the material submitted before us.

3.1 This bench finds that the Liquidator has not denied the existence of arbitral decree, forming basis of present claim, against the Corporate Debtor. This Bench also noticed that the said decree came to be passed on 10.05.2019 and the Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP on 26.11.2021. Accordingly, this Bench feels that these facts would have been available in the audited financial statement of the Corporate Debtor for the year ended 31.03.2020, which the then IRP/RP ought to have taken cognizance of and included the said liability in the information memorandum. We find support from the decision of Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of Puneet Kaur. This Bench further notices that the delay has been condoned by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Deepak Narottam Sampat and Jitender Kumar Jain (IA No. 252/2021 and CP(IB)-1055/MB/2017) and Natwarlal Shamaldas & Co. and Yogi Industries Ltd. (MA-1098/2018 in CP-82/IBC/NCLT/MB) MAH/2017).

3.2 This Bench further finds that the Liquidator has filed Asset Memorandum on 06.03.2023, but the distribution of assets is yet to take place. This Bench finds that the Madras High Court in case of T.R. Rajakumari v. Motion Picture Producers Combine Ltd., AIR 1942 Mad. 349, held that a creditor may come in and prove his debt at any time before the final distribution of the assets, but he cannot disturb any dividend which has already been paid. This Bench also notes that Liquidation Process Regulations does not contain any provision dealing with belated submission of claims. It is trite law that a claim should generally be adjudicating on merits and technicalities should not allow to prevail upon the merits of a claim. The existence of Arbitral decree is not denied by the Liquidator and he has also not commented on the merit of the claim. The mail of the Liquidator intimating rejection of claim is cryptic, and merely communicates the delay in filing the claim as the reason for rejection. It is also not disputed that the distribution of assets has not yet taken place. Acco