Tribunal Upholds Dismissal of Applicant's Relief Claim under Insolvency Code

The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's relief sought in the application under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, emphasizing the binding nature of the resolution plan post-approval. The Applicant's claim, which was under verification, was not supported by necessary documents, and the resolution plan had a contingency fund that expired before the application was filed. The Tribunal upheld the importance of complying with the Code's requirements to protect stakeholders' interests and prevent claims not part of the approved plan from being pursued.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking reliefs for resolving the claim of the Applicant.
2. Dispute regarding the claim submitted by the Operational Creditor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
3. Allegation of failure to submit supporting documents by the Operational Creditor leading to the claim being under verification.
4. Interpretation of the binding nature of a resolution plan on all stakeholders post-approval by the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an application filed under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking directions to resolve the claim of the Applicant, an Operational Creditor, in the Corporate Debtor's insolvency proceedings. The Applicant had submitted a claim of Rs. 22,26,524/-, which was under verification as per the latest list of creditors as on 20.01.2020.

2. The dispute arose as the Applicant alleged that no amounts were paid under the Resolution Plan approved by the Tribunal, while the Respondent contended that the Applicant failed to submit necessary supporting documents. The Resolution Plan had a contingency fund for six months from approval, which expired on 20.07.2020, and the Applicant filed the current application on 29.07.2021, post the expiration of the contingency fund.

3. The Respondent argued that the Applicant's claim was under verification due to the lack of supporting documents. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and noted the importance of complying with the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to ensure the revival of the Corporate Debtor and protect the interests of all stakeholders involved in the resolution process.

4. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the binding nature of a resolution plan on all stakeholders post-approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The Court highlighted that once a resolution plan is approved, claims provided in the plan stand frozen and are binding on the Corporate Debtor and all stakeholders. Any claims not part of the approved plan stand extinguished, preventing the initiation or continuation of proceedings regarding such claims.

5. Based on the legal principles outlined by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's relief sought in the current application, citing the binding nature of the resolution plan and the extinguishment of claims not included in the approved plan. The judgment emphasized the legislative intent behind freezing claims post-approval to enable a fresh start for the resolution applicant and ensure the viability of the resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor's revival.

---