Post-liquidation operational creditor claim based on later regulatory order rejected under IBC Regs 12-13; appeal dismissed

The dominant issue was whether a liquidator under the IBC and the Liquidation Process Regulations could admit an operational creditor claim that was not in existence or crystallised as on the liquidation commencement date. The NCLAT held that Regulations 12 and 13 mandate submission/updation of claims and estimation of liabilities strictly "as on" the liquidation commencement date, with timelines pegged to that date, and do not contemplate admitting liabilities arising thereafter. Since the regulatory order giving rise to the claimed liability was passed post-liquidation commencement, the liquidator rightly rejected the Form-C claim and the AA correctly affirmed that rejection; the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, under the IBC read with the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Liquidator can admit an operational creditor's claim which did not exist on the liquidation commencement date and arose only from an adjudication order passed after that date.

(ii) Whether such a post-liquidation adjudication-based claim can be entertained by condoning delay, when the statutory scheme "freezes" claims with reference to the liquidation commencement date.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i)-(ii): Admissibility of claims arising after the liquidation commencement date and scope for condonation

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined Regulations 12, 13, 16 and 17 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and the structure of Form C. It noted that the public announcement calls for claims "as on the liquidation commencement date", the preliminary report estimates liabilities "as on the liquidation commencement date", and Regulation 16(2) requires a stakeholder to prove its claim for debt or dues "as on the liquidation commencement date". Form C similarly requires disclosure of the "total amount of claim... as at liquidation commencement date". The Court treated this statutory design as giving "inviolable sanctity" to the liquidation commencement date.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the regulations do not contemplate admission of a claim that had not arisen or crystallised on the liquidation commencement date. On the facts, the claimed liability was premised on an adjudication order imposing a monetary penalty that was passed after the liquidation commencement date. Since the claim's foundation post-dated liquidation commencement, it was not a claim "in existence" as required by Regulation 16(2) and the Form C framework. The Court reasoned that this "freezing" of claims at the liquidation commencement date leaves no flexibility or latitude for the Liquidator to entertain such post-commencement claims in liquidation, irrespective of arguments seeking condonation of delay or invoking the claimant's statutory character.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Liquidator acted within the four corners of the IBC and the Liquidation Process Regulations in rejecting the claim, and that the Adjudicating Authority committed no error in affirming that rejection. The appeal was dismissed because the claim arose after liquidation commencement and therefore was inadmissible in liquidation as a claim to be admitted by the Liquidator.

Note on arguments invoking post-liquidation statutory assessment principles: The Court declined to enter into wider questions about enforcement of post-liquidation assessment outcomes, holding that the appeal concerned only admissibility of a claim arising after liquidation commencement, and that the statutory scheme clearly freezes claims as on that date.

---