NCLAT reiterates that new claims cannot be entertained after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) was hearing an appeal and upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, emphasizing the time-bound nature of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Appellate Tribunal reiterated that new claims cannot be entertained after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors. The NCLAT Bench underscored that allowing such claims post-approval could disrupt the resolution process and undermine the purpose of the IBC.
The case involved two appeals filed against the same order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench-I, in response to IA No.2114 of 2023 and IA No.2117 of 2023, both of which were dismissed. The appellants claimed to have provided funds to D.S. Kulkarni Co. in 2015, and asserted that the Corporate Debtor had assumed the liabilities of D.S. Kulkarni Co., with whom they had agreements. These agreements included a tripartite agreement involving the Corporate Debtor, the appellants, and DSK Global Education. According to the appellants, these agreements obligated the Corporate Debtor to honour their claims.
However, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor began on 30.09.2019, of which the appellants claimed to be unaware. They filed their claims in March 2023, more than a year and a half after the Resolution Plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in August 2021. The Resolution Professional (RP) rejected their claims, citing the time-lapse and the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.
The Adjudicating Authority dismissed both applications, referencing the approval of the Resolution Plan and the delay in filing claims. The appellants argued that their claims should be considered based on precedent, particularly citing a judgment regarding homebuyers' claims. However, the RP contended that the time-bound nature of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) precluded the acceptance of new claims after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, finding no error in rejecting the applications. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the timeframes set forth in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and noted that allowing new claims after the approval of the Resolution Plan could undermine the resolution process. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Subscribers can access the case, along with case analysis, case research, ratio decidendi, headnotes, briefs, caselaw cross-references, etc. etc.
Click on the Citation
Comments