No new claims to be considered after approval and implementation of Resolution Plan: NCLAT

Case Details: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Dinesh Chandra Agarwal Interim Resolution Professional - [2022] 139 taxmann.com 468 (NCLAT- New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Jarat Kumar Jain, Judicial Member and Dr. Alok Srivastava, Technical Member
  • U.N. Singh, Adv. for the Appellant. 
  • Shobhan Mahanti, Adv. and S.S. Bhati, PCS for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, an Appeal was filed under section 61 of the ‘IBC’ against the impugned Order passed by the NCLT filed under section 60(5) of the IBC. The appellant- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority transferred certain land to the corporate debtor – M/s. Maple Realcon Private Limited for purpose of the development of sports city through lease deed.

Subsequently, an application under section 9 of the IBC was filed by the operational creditor- M/s. Bindals Merchandise against the Corporate Debtor and CIRP was initiated by an order of the NCLT. The Appellant filed its claim but the same was rejected by RP on the ground that the resolution plan was already approved by CoC and the same was pending for approval by the NCLT.

The Appellant argued that the Appellant was a Statutory Authority and it could not submit its claim as a financial creditor in the stipulated time period to the resolution professional as it was not aware of the ongoing CIRP process against the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant had prayed for setting aside the common impugned order or remanding the case back to the NCLT for reconsideration after giving him an opportunity of hearing.

NCLT Held

It was held that the Appellant was well aware of the ongoing CIRP and hence should have kept track of the various actions being taken under the CIRP to guard its interest. By being remiss, it had not only missed the opportunity to file its claim but had also filed its claim after much delay, after the lapse of respective limitations.

Furthermore, as the NCLT had held in the Impugned Order, there was no provision in the IBC for recalling the order approving the Resolution Plan, the proper course for the Appellant was to file an appeal under IBC if it was aggrieved by the Resolution Plan approval order

In view of the above, the NCLAT agreed with the NCLT who had correctly held that there was no legal provision that allows it to recall or review its order approving the resolution plan for the corporate debtor and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

Case Review

• • Bindals Merchandise v. Maple Realcon (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 467 (NCLT – New Delhi) (para 15) affirmed [See Annex].
  • Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta [2019] 111 taxmann.com 234 (SC) (para 13);
  • Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 360/166 SCL 678 (SC) (para 13) and
  • Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 132/166 SCL 237 (SC) (para 13) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta [2019] 111 taxmann.com 234 (SC) (para 13)
  • Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 360/166 SCL 678 (SC) (para 13)
  • Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 132/166 SCL 237 (SC) (para 13).