Resolution plan claims cannot be revived after approval, and contingency funds cannot be used once the plan is fully implemented.

A claim under a resolution plan was rejected because the claimant did not produce supporting documents for verification and raised the claim only after approval of the plan. Once a resolution plan is approved, it binds stakeholders on a clean-slate basis, so claims not included in the plan cannot be revived later. The claimant was also denied payment from the contingency fund, because that fund was only a limited provision for unresolved claims during the stipulated period, had expired, and the plan had already been fully implemented with no balance remaining. The rejection of the claim and denial of contingency fund payment were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the resolution professional was justified in rejecting the appellant's claim for want of supporting documents and verification; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to payment of Rs. 18,30,894/- from the contingency fund under the approved resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether the resolution professional was justified in rejecting the appellant's claim for want of supporting documents and verification.

Analysis: The claim was required to be supported by documentary material showing an operational debt. The appellant did not furnish the documents sought for verification, and the claim was raised after the resolution plan had already been approved. Once a resolution plan is approved, it binds all stakeholders and the successful resolution applicant is entitled to proceed on a clean slate. Claims not forming part of the approved plan cannot be revived later, and the record did not show any error in the rejection based on unsupported and unverified claim documents.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claim was upheld and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to payment of Rs. 18,30,894/- from the contingency fund under the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The contingency fund was only a limited provision meant to meet uncertain or unresolved claims within the stipulated period under the resolution plan. The fund had a fixed life, the resolution plan had already been fully implemented, the monitoring committee had ceased to function, and no balance remained available for later claims. A claim raised after expiry of the contingency period could not be entertained from that fund once the plan stood implemented.

Conclusion: The claim against the contingency fund was not admissible and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the order rejecting the claim was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a resolution plan is approved, claims not included in the plan stand extinguished and cannot be enforced later, and a contingency fund under the plan cannot be tapped after its stipulated period or after full implementation of the plan.

---