NCLAT rejects 1197-day delayed claims filing after Resolution Plan approval citing RPS Infrastructure precedent

NCLAT dismissed appeal seeking condonation of 1197-day delay in filing claims under Form-CA. Appellant filed claims on 29.03.2023, over 1.5 years after CoC approved Resolution Plan on 13.08.2021. Tribunal relied on SC precedent in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, where 287-day delayed claim was rejected post-Resolution Plan approval. NCLAT held no error by Adjudicating Authority in rejecting delayed applications, noting Resolution Plan already approved by order dated 23.06.2023. Appeal dismissed as claims filed substantially after Resolution Plan approval by CoC.

---

---

Issues involved:
The case involves appeals against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I, where the appellants sought condonation of delay and admission of claims in relation to money advanced to a company that later underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay and Admission of Claims (Company Appeal No. 192 of 2024):
The appellant advanced money to a company, and after the company took over another entity's liabilities, the appellant's loan was adjusted through a registered agreement. Despite being unaware of the CIRP against the company, the appellants filed their claim after the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application citing the approval of the Resolution Plan and previous judgments.

Issue 2 - Similar Claim (Company Appeal No. 193 of 2024):
In a similar scenario, another appellant advanced money to the same company, and their claim was also rejected by the Adjudicating Authority based on the approval of the Resolution Plan and existing legal precedents.

Summary of Judgment:
The Adjudicating Authority dismissed both applications for condonation of delay and admission of claims, citing the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC and relevant legal precedents. The appellants argued that the company, as the debtor, should honor the agreements made, but the Resolution Professional contended that the claims were untimely and lacked merit. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments emphasizing the time-bound nature of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and the importance of not allowing new claims after the approval of the Resolution Plan.

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the claims were filed after a significant delay following the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal highlighted the need to adhere to the timelines set by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing that allowing late claims could jeopardize the resolution process. The appellants' reliance on certain judgments was deemed misplaced as their claims were not reflected in the debtor's records. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's decision and dismissed both appeals, with no costs awarded.

---