Late CIRP claims cannot be revived by COVID limitation extension once the prescribed period had already expired.

A belated claim filed after the last date in the CIRP could not be entertained because the prescribed claims period had already expired before the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation suspension began. The time-bound nature of insolvency resolution supported refusal to reopen the claims stage at an advanced point, as doing so would prejudice other creditors and undermine finality in the process. The appellate tribunal therefore upheld rejection of the application and confirmed that the late claim could not be admitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claim filed after the last date prescribed in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process could be directed to be accepted, and whether the benefit of the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation extension could be invoked where the limitation period had already expired before the relevant suspension period.

Analysis: The claim was filed long after the expiry of the last date fixed for submission of claims. The extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 period did not assist the appellant because the prescribed period had already expired before that extension could operate. The refusal to accept a belated claim was also consistent with the time-bound nature of the insolvency resolution process, where reopening the claim stage at an advanced stage would prejudice other creditors and undermine the objective of publication and finality in the process.

Conclusion: The claim could not be entertained at the belated stage, and the dismissal of the application was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, and the order refusing to admit the late claim was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim filed after expiry of the prescribed claims period in a time-bound insolvency resolution process cannot be revived by the COVID-19 limitation extension if the limitation had already expired before the relevant suspension period began.

---