Delayed insolvency claim cannot be rejected on limitation alone; statutory dues must be considered on merits.

Regulation 12 of the IBBI CIRP Regulations was treated as directory, not mandatory, for filing proof of claim. A delayed claim for interest and damages under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act could not be rejected solely as time-barred when statutory dues remained payable and reasons for delay were shown. The prior rejection based only on delay and progress of the resolution process was unsustainable, and the claim had to be reconsidered on its merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for interest and damages under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 could be rejected as time-barred under Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

Analysis: The claim was rejected below mainly on the ground of delay in filing. The governing principle applied was that Regulation 12 prescribes the time for filing proof of claim, but the time stipulation is directory and not mandatory. Delayed filing does not, by itself, extinguish a statutory claim, especially where reasons for delay are shown. The decision also noted that the rejection could not rest solely on the fact that the resolution process had progressed, and the claim required consideration on its own merits.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claim solely on limitation was unsustainable. The claim had to be reconsidered afresh on merits, and the finding on delay was set aside.

---