Approved resolution plan governs pre CIRP claims; payment made under protest pursuant to the plan may be refunded.

The text addresses a dispute over refund of an amount paid under protest by the successful resolution applicant towards pre CIRP municipal property tax. It summarises that the approved resolution plan and its uncontested implementation govern treatment of pre CIRP claims, that payments made under protest pursuant to an operative resolution plan may be refundable where appropriate, and that distinguishing facts in conflicting precedents affected their applicability. Applying these principles, the appellate tribunal found no error in the adjudicating authority's direction to refund and declined to interfere with that order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority was right in allowing the application directing refund of Rs. 39,96,685/- paid under protest towards pre-CIRP municipal property tax and whether the Appellate Tribunal should interfere with the impugned order directing such refund.

Analysis: The dispute centres on payment made by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) under protest towards pre-CIRP municipal property tax and the adjudicating authority's order directing refund of that amount. The Tribunal examined (i) factual matrix showing that the resolution plan proposed a payment to the municipal corporation and that the amount for removal of seal was paid under protest, (ii) that the resolution plan had been approved and its implementation was not under challenge, and (iii) relevant precedents including the Supreme Court authority on extinguishment of claims by approved resolution plans (Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd.). The Tribunal distinguished the Madras High Court decision relied on by the appellant on its facts (ongoing litigation and failures in disclosure there) and found those distinctions material. Applying the governing principle that an approved resolution plan, when operative and not successfully challenged, governs treatment of pre-CIRP claims and that payment under protest made pursuant to the approved plan may be refunded where appropriate, the Tribunal concluded there was no error in the adjudicating authority allowing refund under the circumstances of this case.

Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; no interference is warranted with the adjudicating authority's order directing refund of the amount paid under protest.

---