Claim not filed after public notices under Sections 13 and 15 IBC cannot be entertained after resolution plan approval SC allowed the appeal, holding that a claim not lodged after public notices issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC could not be entertained once the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Claim not filed after public notices under Sections 13 and 15 IBC cannot be entertained after resolution plan approval
SC allowed the appeal, holding that a claim not lodged after public notices issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC could not be entertained once the resolution plan was approved. All claims stood frozen on approval, so any claim not included in the resolution plan does not survive. The respondent's belated claim was therefore rejected, and the amount deposited by the appellant at the time of admission of the appeals, with accrued interest, was directed to be refunded.
Issues: Challenge to judgment of High Court on writ petitions regarding customs notification applicability. Consideration of claim not lodged before Resolution Professional under IBC.
Analysis: The Supreme Court heard appeals challenging a High Court judgment dismissing writ petitions related to the applicability of a customs notification to imported goods. The petitions sought mandamus regarding the notification's impact on imported crude palmolein. The appeals were filed after the writ petitions were rejected. Additionally, an application was filed to highlight subsequent developments and appeal disposal.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that the Standard Chartered Bank initiated insolvency proceedings against the appellant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Resolution Professional filed for approval of the Resolution Plan, which was granted, transferring management to the successful Resolution Applicant. The key issue was whether a claim not lodged before the Resolution Professional post-public notices under the IBC could be considered.
Arguments were presented by counsels for the appellant and respondent. The appellant's counsel cited a previous case to support that claims not part of the Resolution Plan cannot be entertained. The respondent's counsel argued confusion regarding the claim and lack of notice to the Authority at Mangalore.
The Court referred to a previous judgment, stating that claims not part of the Resolution Plan are extinguished upon approval. As the respondent did not lodge a claim for the subject matter of the proceedings after public notices, such claims do not survive. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, directing the refund of the deposited amount with interest. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.