Provident fund claims in CIRP cannot be enlarged after approval of a binding resolution plan; clean slate principle applies.

Provident fund dues admitted during CIRP could not be re-opened or enlarged after approval of the resolution plan. The approved plan remained binding on the Corporate Debtor, employees, creditors and other stakeholders, consistent with the clean slate principle under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The exclusion of provident fund amounts from the liquidation estate under Section 36 was held to operate only at the liquidation stage and was inapplicable where the Corporate Debtor had not gone into liquidation. The later enhanced claim was unsupported and could not displace the claim already admitted and incorporated in the plan, so the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether provident fund dues could be re-opened or kept of the approved resolution plan, and whether the approved resolution plan binding the stakeholders could be interfered with on the ground that provident fund amounts are protected under the insolvency framework.

Analysis: The Corporate Debtor was in CIRP and the appellant had submitted a claim for provident fund dues, which was admitted and dealt with in the resolution process. Once the resolution plan was approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the claims contained in the plan stood frozen and became binding on the Corporate Debtor, its employees, creditors and other stakeholders. The Court relied on the settled principle that a successful resolution applicant is entitled to proceed on a clean slate and should not be confronted with undisclosed or fresh claims after approval of the plan. It further held that the exclusion of provident fund dues from the liquidation estate under Section 36 operates at the liquidation stage and had no application where the Corporate Debtor had not gone into liquidation. The enhanced claim raised later by the appellant was not supported by any justification and could not displace the claim already admitted and incorporated in the resolution plan.

Conclusion: The approved resolution plan remained binding, the appellant could not enlarge its claim beyond what had already been admitted, and the challenge to the plan failed.

---