NTPC LTD. (SIMHADRI PROJECT) versus RAJIV CHAKRABORTY

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1090 · Decided: 16-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
NTPC LTD. (SIMHADRI PROJECT)
v.
RAJIV CHAKRABORTY
(Civil Appeal No. 2798 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 16, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, B. R. GAVAI AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Information
Memorandum – Prepared by Resolution Professional – Appellant-
creditor’s name was put in the ‘List of Other Creditors’ and was not
reflected in ‘Claims of Operational Creditors’ – Appellant’s claim
that its name should have been reflected in ‘Claims of Operational
Creditors’ – Held: Since the claim of the appellant is still pending
adjudication before the Arbitrator, it has rightly been described in
the memorandum as other creditors claim – The purpose of
Information Memorandum is only to provide relevant information
regarding financial position of the Company – It does not decide
the claim – The Resolution Professional has no authority to accept
or disallow the claims – Appellant’s claim would not get extinguished
unless it is adjudicated upon by a competent forum or by operation
of law – Appellant can take recourse to appropriate remedy, if it is
aggrieved with the final resolution plan – Matter disposed of.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2798
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.06.2020 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT)
(INSOLVENCY) No. 493 of 2020.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Adarsh Tripathi and Gaurav, Advs. for the
Appellant.
C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Ajay Bhargava,
Siddharth Srivastava, Mohit Kishore, Ms. Warmika Trehan and Shivank
Diddi, Advs. for the Respondent.
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 1090
1090
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1091
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The limited issue in this appeal is about the claim of the appellant
not being reflected under the heading ‘Claims of Operational Creditors’
in the Information Memorandum prepared by the Resolution Professional.
The Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal have taken
a view that the appellant’s claim is already noted in Information
Memorandum under the title, ‘List of Other Creditor Claims (excluding
Related Party Claims and Employees and Workmen Claims) as on 17th
July, 2019’. No grievance has been made by the appellant that the figure
noted therein is incorrect.
According to the appellant, the claim amount should have been
reflected under the heading ‘Claims of Operational Creditors’. We do
not agree with this submission.
It is not in dispute that the claim of the appellant is still pending
adjudication before the Arbitrator and it has been, therefore, rightly
described in the memorandum as other creditor claims (claims under
adjudication).
The purpose of memorandum is only to provide relevant information
regarding the financial position of the company in question. It is not
about deciding the claim or disregarding the claim amount, if it exists in
law. The Resolution Professional has no authority/power to accept or
disallow the claims.  The appellant’s claim would not get extinguished
unless it is adjudicated upon by a competent forum or by operation of
law.
Suffice it to observe that the claim of the appellant has been taken
note of in the information memorandum and does not get extinguished
as such; but it will be subject to adjudication by the Arbitrator.  Since it is
part of the memorandum, it is obvious that the resolution applicant would
take the same into account while submitting his proposal, due notice
whereof will be taken by the committee of creditors as well, and dealt
with appropriately in the final resolution plan.
In the event, the appellant has any grievance about the nature or
manner of provision made in the final resolution plan qua its claim; and if
NTPC LTD. (SIMHADRI PROJECT) v. RAJIV CHAKRABORTY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
aggrieved with the final resolution plan, may take recourse to appropriate
remedy as per law.
All contentions available to the appellant in that regard are left
open while once again making it clear that the claim of the appellant has
not been treated as extinguished.
In view of the above, the civil appeal is disposed of.
As the appeal is disposed of, the interim order passed earlier stands
vacated.
As a result of which, we expect the concerned authorities to
expedite the process of resolution.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.