# In the matter of Goltens India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Sudip Bhattacharya, Insolvency Resolution
professional of Reliance Naval and
Engineering Ltd. Company Appeal(AT) (Insolvency) No. 571 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-08-16. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00284. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 30.03.2022 regarding I.A. No. 135 of 2021,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 16 Aug 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00284
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/goltens-india-pvt-ltd-vs-sudip-bhattacharya-insolvency-resolution-professional-o-feccddbe

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 30.03.2022 regarding I.A. No. 135 of 2021, which was disposed of. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 15.01.2020. The Appellant filed a claim in the CIRP on 29.09.2020 and had also filed a commercial suit (COMS/1218/2019) before the Bombay High Court to recover outstanding amounts from the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional accepted the Appellant's claim as a 'Contingent Claim', and the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC earmarked Re. 1 for the Appellant's claim. I.A. No. 135 of 2021 was filed by the Appellant seeking direction against the Resolution Professional for rejecting the claim.

## Facts

Goltens India Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against an order dated 30.03.2022 concerning I.A. No. 135 of 2021. CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 15.01.2020. Goltens India Pvt. Ltd. filed a claim on 29.09.2020 and a commercial suit (COMS/1218/2019) in Bombay High Court for recovery of outstanding amounts. The Resolution Professional accepted the claim as a 'Contingent Claim', with Re. 1 earmarked in the Resolution Plan. I.A. No. 135 of 2021 sought directions against the Resolution Professional for rejecting the claim. The Adjudicating Authority considered the claim contingent pending the Bombay High Court suit, admitting a nominal INR 1 claim. The email communication dated 16.03.2021 stated the claim would be treated as contingent until the judgment in the suit.

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in treating the Appellant's claim as a contingent …

**Ratio:** The principle applied is that a claim is considered contingent when its existence depends

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority had already observed and noticed that

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that a claim's status as contingent is determined by its

…

**Application:** In this specific case, the Appellant's claim was contingent because it depended

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; M. Satyanarayana…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Goltens India…
- **Respondents:** Reliance Naval &…; Reliance Naval…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2020-01-15 — CIRP Commen…**: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)…
- **2020-09-29 — Claim Fi…**: The Appellant filed a…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/goltens-india-pvt-ltd-vs-sudip-bhattacharya-insolvency-resolution-professional-o-feccddbe