Limited remand in CIRP does not revive a finally rejected belated claim; amended regulation applies prospectively only.

A limited remand of a resolution plan for resubmission does not reopen a belated claim that has already attained finality through prior litigation. The objection application was therefore non-maintainable because it sought to challenge a plan remitted only for compliance with specified directions, and the proposed amendment seeking admission of the claim could not be sustained once the parent application failed. The amended Regulation 13(1)(b) of the CIRP Regulations, inserted on 18 September 2023, was treated as prospective and inapplicable to a CIRP that began in 2019. The commentary emphasises that a later procedural remand does not revive concluded issues, and a new regulatory right applies only prospectively absent clear contrary intent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could reopen the issue of admission of its belated claim and seek amendment of the objection application after the resolution plan was remitted for resubmission, and whether the amended Regulation 13(1)(b) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 applied to the pending CIRP.

Analysis: The earlier rejection of the appellant's belated claim had already attained finality through successive rounds of litigation. The later order remitting the resolution plan for resubmission was confined to implementing the Supreme Court's directions regarding the treatment of the authority as a secured creditor and compliance with feasibility and approval requirements in the resolution plan. That limited remand did not reopen concluded issues or create a fresh cause of action for re-agitating the rejected claim. The objection application was directed against a plan that had been sent back for resubmission and was therefore held non-maintainable, and the proposed amendment seeking a direction to admit the claim could not survive once the parent application itself was not maintainable. The amended Regulation 13(1)(b), inserted by notification dated 18 September 2023, was held to be prospective and inapplicable to a CIRP that had commenced in 2019.

Conclusion: The challenge to admission of the belated claim failed, the amendment application was not maintainable, and the prospective regulatory amendment did not assist the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld, and no interference was warranted with the dismissal of both applications.

Ratio Decidendi: A limited remand of a resolution plan for compliance with specific directions does not revive a claim already finally rejected, and a subsequent amendment creating a new right operates prospectively unless the statute clearly provides otherwise.

---