Residuary insolvency jurisdiction does not cover pre-CIRP closure disputes governed by another statute, or reopened wage claims.

Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a residuary jurisdictional provision confined to questions arising out of or in relation to the insolvency process, and it does not extend to disputes that are independent of insolvency or governed by another statutory regime. Where the challenge concerns pre-CIRP closure and transfer notices under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to examine their legality. On that basis, workmen's post-closure wage and bonus claims could not be reopened as a challenge to the closure itself, and the admitted claim determination was not shown to require interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to adjudicate the legality of the closure notice dated 31.07.2017 and the transfer notice dated 20.06.2017 issued before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, and whether the workmen's post-closure wage and bonus claims could be reopened on that basis.

Analysis: The dispute arose from closure and transfer steps taken before initiation of insolvency proceedings and was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) extends to questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution, but it does not extend to matters that are unrelated to insolvency or that lie dehors the insolvency framework. The earlier orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court did not decide the legality of the closure notice or confer jurisdiction on the Adjudicating Authority to decide it. The wage claim after the closure was also not liable to be entertained as a challenge to the closure itself, and the admitted claim was not shown to warrant interference.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority correctly declined jurisdiction over the challenge to the closure and transfer notices, and the challenge to the related claim determination failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not establish any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order, and the dismissal of the application was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be invoked to decide disputes that are independent of, and unrelated to, the insolvency process, especially where the underlying challenge concerns pre-CIRP actions governed by another statutory regime.

---