Issues: Whether unadjudicated interest and damages under the provident fund law, not determined before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, must be provided for in an approved resolution plan.

Analysis: Provident fund dues may stand excluded from the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, interest and damages under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which had neither been determined nor become final before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, are contingent and uncrystallized liabilities. A resolution plan may make a lump-sum provision for such liabilities in the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, but absence of such provision does not by itself violate the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The resolution applicant is entitled to certainty regarding liabilities assumed under the plan, and approval of a Committee-approved plan may be declined only on the limited grounds under Section 30(2) of that Code.

Conclusion: Uncrystallized claims for interest and damages need not be included in the approved resolution plan; exclusion of those claims was valid and the issue is decided against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Unadjudicated statutory interest and damages that remain uncrystallized on the commencement date of the corporate insolvency resolution process are contingent liabilities, and their omission from a Committee-approved resolution plan does not contravene the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed and the accompanying interlocutory application(s) were disposed of.

Outcome: The civil appeals were dismissed, and the cost of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed by the NCLAT was set aside.

Outcome: Special leave petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to request consideration of the reference by the Hon'ble Chairman of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

Issues: Whether a new Interim Resolution Professional should be appointed for completion of the remaining exercise relating to execution of the conveyance deed and verification of pending home buyer claims, in view of the earlier appointee proceeding on leave.

Analysis: The existing Interim Resolution Professional was unavailable till at least the end of July 2026, which impeded compliance with the Court's earlier time-bound directions concerning registration of the apartments in consultation with the home buyers. Since claims of 71 home buyers were still pending verification, a replacement was necessary to complete the remaining exercise on behalf of the project company.

Conclusion: A new Interim Resolution Professional was appointed to complete the remaining conveyance and verification exercise, and was directed to receive the same remuneration as the earlier professionals.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was found to arise, and the impugned judgment was left undisturbed.

Outcome: Civil appeal dismissed; no interference was called for with the impugned order.

Issues: Whether the delay of 166 days in re-filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed within limitation, but the defects were not cured within the time prescribed under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The explanation offered for the re-filing delay was the non-availability of typed pages and the appellant company's authorised representative undergoing treatment. The Court found that no cause, much less sufficient cause, had been shown to justify the delay.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of re-filing delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the interim stay on the corporate insolvency resolution process should be continued in view of the subsequent setting aside of the ex parte DRT order and closure of the recovery certificate, and whether the NCLAT should be directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

Analysis: The order records that the ex parte DRT order dated 12.04.2022 had been recalled and the recovery certificate had been closed, a fact not placed before the Tribunal below. In light of this subsequent development, the interim protection already granted was continued and the NCLAT was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal after permitting both sides to place the updated facts and additional documents on record. The order expressly states that no opinion was expressed on the merits.

Conclusion: The interim arrangement was continued and the appeal before the NCLAT was to be decided afresh on the basis of the updated record.

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the Section 9 insolvency application as time-barred could stand when the record showed part payments, a running ledger account, and a confirmation of accounts, and whether the matter required fresh consideration by the appellate tribunal.

Analysis: The notice under Section 8 and the petition under Section 9 referred not only to the stated default date but also to continued part payments, the last payment date, and a confirmation of account within the relevant period. The running ledger account and confirmation letter were part of the record, yet they were not considered while deciding limitation. Since these documents were material to the question whether the claim was barred by limitation, their non-consideration affected the correctness of the decision.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the matter had to be considered afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: When material documents showing part payments, ledger entries, or confirmation of account bear on limitation, they must be considered before rejecting an insolvency application as time-barred.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment was not interfered with.

Outcome: The appeal was disposed of with no interference in the impugned judgment and order, and the appellant was granted time to vacate the premises.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the impugned order of the appellate tribunal when the approval of the resolution plan was not under challenge and the appellant's grievance had been left open for consideration before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The request for condonation of delay was allowed. On merits, the Court noted that the approval of the resolution plan was not in question. It further noted that the appellate tribunal had expressly left open the appellant's grievance regarding payment of a lesser amount than claimed, to be pursued in the pending proceedings before the adjudicating authority. In these circumstances, no error in the impugned order was found.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the appeal failed.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order was not interfered with.