Resolution Plan Binding on Stakeholders; Operational Debts Discharged; Claims Deadline; Liquidation Denied

The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the approved Resolution Plan under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, stating it applies to all stakeholders, including statutory creditors. The Plan discharges antecedent operational debts, and claims not submitted within the stipulated time during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process are deemed extinguished. The Tribunal rejected applications for the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, affirming the finality and binding effect of the Resolution Plan.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Binding nature of the approved Resolution Plan on stakeholders.
2. Discharge of antecedent operational debts.
3. Refusal of statutory authorities to comply with the approved Resolution Plan.
4. Validity of claims not submitted within the stipulated time during CIRP.
5. Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Binding Nature of the Approved Resolution Plan on Stakeholders:
The Tribunal emphasized that once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), it becomes binding on all stakeholders, including statutory creditors. The provision explicitly includes the Central Government, State Governments, and local authorities. This ensures that no claims can arise post-approval, providing certainty to the Resolution Applicant.

2. Discharge of Antecedent Operational Debts:
The Tribunal declared that the approved Resolution Plan discharges all antecedent operational debts. The Respondents were directed to reverse or write off such debts in their books. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Essar Steel, which held that a successful Resolution Applicant cannot face undecided claims post-approval, as it would disrupt the certainty required for the business's revival.

3. Refusal of Statutory Authorities to Comply with the Approved Resolution Plan:
Statutory authorities from Kerala and Gujarat continued to claim dues despite the approved Resolution Plan. The Tribunal noted that such actions violate Section 31(1) of the IBC, which mandates that an approved Resolution Plan is binding on all stakeholders. The Tribunal reiterated that statutory dues are considered operational debts and must be treated as per the approved Resolution Plan.

4. Validity of Claims Not Submitted Within the Stipulated Time During CIRP:
The Tribunal found that claims not submitted within the stipulated time during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) are deemed extinguished. The Tribunal referenced the Essar Steel judgment, which clarified that all claims must be submitted and decided during the CIRP to provide certainty to the Resolution Applicant. The Tribunal dismissed the argument that statutory creditors are exempt from this requirement, emphasizing that the IBC's overriding effect under Section 238 applies.

5. Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor:
Several statutory authorities filed applications seeking the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, arguing that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Resolution Professional had become functus officio. The Tribunal rejected these applications, stating that the approved Resolution Plan is binding and cannot be challenged through such applications. The Tribunal noted that the proper recourse for aggrieved parties is to appeal under Sections 61 or 62 of the IBC.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the application by the Corporate Debtor, declaring that the approved Resolution Plan is binding on all stakeholders, including statutory authorities. The Tribunal directed the Respondents to reverse or write off antecedent operational debts in their books. Applications seeking the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor were rejected, affirming the finality and binding nature of the approved Resolution Plan.

---