Clean slate principle under insolvency bars revival of extinguished claims and blocks arbitration over settled resolution plan matters.

Approval of a resolution plan under the insolvency framework gives finality to claims dealt with in the resolution process, and claims not preserved or admitted under the plan are extinguished against the corporate debtor and the successful resolution applicant. The clean slate principle applies, so pre-resolution claims cannot be enforced once the plan takes effect. At the referral stage, arbitration must be refused where it would reopen matters already concluded by the approved plan and undermine the binding effect of the insolvency resolution process. The court therefore held that the petitioner's pre-resolution claims stood extinguished except to the extent admitted, and the disputes were non-arbitrable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether approval of the resolution plan extinguished the petitioner's claims against the corporate debtor and the successful resolution applicant. (ii) Whether the disputes sought to be referred to arbitration were non-arbitrable in view of the approved resolution plan and the insolvency regime.

Issue (i): Whether approval of the resolution plan extinguished the petitioner's claims against the corporate debtor and the successful resolution applicant.

Analysis: The approval of a resolution plan under the insolvency framework gives statutory finality to claims that were submitted, collated, and dealt with in the resolution process. The successful resolution applicant is entitled to take over the corporate debtor on a clean slate, and claims not forming part of the approved plan cannot survive for enforcement against the corporate debtor or its successor. Once the Supreme Court had settled the treatment of the petitioner's claim in the insolvency proceedings, the controversy regarding those pre-resolution claims stood concluded.

Conclusion: The petitioner's claims, except to the extent admitted in the approved resolution plan, stood extinguished; this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputes sought to be referred to arbitration were non-arbitrable in view of the approved resolution plan and the insolvency regime.

Analysis: At the referral stage, the Court may refuse reference where the dispute is demonstrably non-arbitrable. Here, permitting arbitration would amount to reopening matters already concluded by the approved resolution plan and would undermine the finality attached to the insolvency resolution process. The court found that the reference sought was not merely debatable but would revive dead claims barred by the clean slate principle and the binding effect of the plan.

Conclusion: The disputes were non-arbitrable and no reference to arbitration was warranted; this issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the approved resolution plan had closed the petitioner's pre-resolution claims and the proposed reference would impermissibly reopen settled insolvency outcomes.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a resolution plan is approved, claims not preserved or admitted under that plan are extinguished and cannot be revived through arbitration; the referral court must refuse reference where entertaining the dispute would reopen a final insolvency resolution and defeat the clean slate principle.

---