The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the case Goltens India Pvt. Ltd. v Sudip Bhattacharya, the bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Justice N Satyanarayana Murthy (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) observed while adjudicating in an appeal filed and has upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s order to earmark Rs. 1 towards a contingent claim arising out from a recovery suit filed before the High Court. Thus, the NCLAT Bench held that if the suit is decreed then the creditor shall be entitled to claim from the Successful Resolution Applicant.
Facts of the Case:
The Corporate Debtor, Reliance Naval and Engineering Ltd is a part of the Reliance Group and the first private sector company in India to have obtained licence and contract to build warships. It was admitted by the Corporate Debtor into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) by the Adjudicating Authority on 15.01.2020. The Appellant, Goltens India Pvt. Ltd is a leading service provider for marine, offshore industrial, oil and gas sector.
An application had been filled in 2019 for a commercial suit, the suit is pending adjudication. Consequently, when CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor in 2020, on 29.09.2022, the appellant also filled its claim with the Resolution Professional.
The Appellant’s claim was accepted by the Resolution Professional as ‘Contingent Claim’ and when the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors, a sum of Rs. 1 was earmarked as a contingent claim to the claim of the Appellant. Thus, the applicant filled an I.A. No. 135 of 2021 before the Adjudicating Authority, wherein seeking direction to the Resolution Professional to include the name of the Appellant in the list of the creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The adjudicating authority disposed of the application vide dated 30.03.2022 with following observations:
It was stated by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pahwa that in reply page No. 24, on 16.03.2021, the e-mail communication sent to the Applicant, the RP has mentioned that in the light of the pendency of the suit being COMS/1218/2019 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the said amount will be claimed by the Applicant will be treated as contingent claimed until any judgment pronounced in the said suit, but admitting nominal amount of INR 1 as the claim of Applicant which is reflected on the website, in the light of the above, we consider that nothing survives in this Application.
An appeal was filled by the appellant before the NCLAT challenging the order dated 30.03.2022.
NCLAT Decision:
It was observed that the NCLAT that Adjudicating Authority had already observed that the claim of the Appellant is to be treated as contingent till the judgment is pronounced in the suit.
However, the court see no reason to take any other view of the matter. In the event the suit of the Appellant is decreed, the claim being contingent and the Appellant shall be entitled claim from the Successful Resolution Applicant.
Accordingly, the bench disposed of the appeal.
