NCLAT dismisses appeal, rules counter claims against corporate debtor non-maintainable during CIRP under Section 60(5) IBC 2016

NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging maintainability of counter claim during CIRP proceedings. Tribunal held that Section 60(5) of IBC 2016 cannot be invoked to raise counter claims against corporate debtor within time-bound resolution process, as this would delay proceedings and distort IBC objectives. Following SC precedent in Adani Power Limited, court ruled that claims not included in approved resolution plan are extinguished and cannot be subsequently agitated. Counter claim was deemed non-maintainable as appellant's claim denial had attained finality without challenge before appropriate forum.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment primarily revolves around the following legal issues:

• The maintainability of a counterclaim in the proceedings of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code).
• The applicability of Section 60(5) of the I&B Code concerning the counterclaim and whether such claims can be entertained under the approved Resolution Plan.
• The implications of the approved Resolution Plan on claims not included within it, specifically in the context of the 'clean slate' principle.
• The jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to entertain claims that are subject to arbitration proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of Counterclaim in CIRP Proceedings

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The I&B Code, 2016, particularly Section 60(5), was analyzed alongside precedents such as the Jharkand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. IVRCL Ltd. and Fourth Dimensions Solutions Ltd. v. Ricoh India Pvt. Ltd. These cases discussed the admissibility of counterclaims in insolvency proceedings.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the counterclaim could be considered if it is intertwined with the principal claim, as per the precedent set in Jharkand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. IVRCL Ltd.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant's claim of Rs.78.16 Crores was disputed by the Corporate Debtor, who raised a counterclaim of Rs.160.46 Crores.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the counterclaim should be adjudicated in arbitration proceedings, not within the CIRP, especially since the Resolution Plan was already approved.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant argued for the counterclaim's consideration under Section 60(5), but the Tribunal held that the matter should be resolved through arbitration.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the counterclaim is not maintainable within the CIRP proceedings and should be addressed in arbitration.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 60(5) of the I&B Code

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 60(5) of the I&B Code allows for the adjudication of disputes not covered by the Code. The Tribunal referred to the Adani Power Limited case to interpret this provision.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted that Section 60(5) cannot be used to expand the scope of claims beyond what is included in the Resolution Plan.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Appellant's claim was not admitted by the Resolution Professional due to a pre-existing dispute.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the 'clean slate' principle, emphasizing that claims not included in the Resolution Plan are extinguished.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's argument for using Section 60(5) was dismissed as it would contravene the I&B Code's objective.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that Section 60(5) does not apply to claims outside the Resolution Plan.

Issue 3: Implications of the Approved Resolution Plan

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referred to the Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. case to discuss the implications of an approved Resolution Plan.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the Resolution Plan binds all stakeholders and extinguishes any claims not included.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant's claim was not part of the Resolution Plan, and thus considered extinguished.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that claims outside the Resolution Plan cannot be pursued post-approval.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's request to preserve their claim was rejected based on the 'clean slate' principle.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that claims not included in the Resolution Plan are extinguished and cannot be revived through Section 60(5).

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referred to the Adani Power Limited case to discuss the jurisdictional limits of the Adjudicating Authority.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that disputes subject to arbitration fall outside its jurisdiction.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The existence of an arbitration clause in the contract between the Appellant and Corporate Debtor was pivotal.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the dispute should be resolved in arbitration, not within the CIRP.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's argument for adjudication within the CIRP was dismissed.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction over the arbitration-bound dispute.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated, "once a resolution plan is duly approved...all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished."
• Core Principles Established: The 'clean slate' principle was reaffirmed, emphasizing that claims not included in the Resolution Plan are extinguished. The jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority does not extend to arbitration-bound disputes.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's claims, emphasizing that the counterclaim is not maintainable within the CIRP and should be resolved through arbitration. The application of Section 60(5) was limited to matters not covered by the Resolution Plan.

---