Liquidation claim deadlines cannot be bypassed for an unexplained delay, even by a government creditor.

The liquidation framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires claims to be lodged within the time fixed in the public announcement, and a stale claim filed after an inordinate delay cannot be revived without a satisfactory explanation. A customs department claim lodged 787 days late was rejected because the delay was unexplained, and the pendency of related customs proceedings or the claimant's status as a authority did not justify bypassing the liquidation timeline. The regulations were applied to preserve the speed and finality of liquidation, and the rejection of the belated claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim filed by the customs department before the liquidator after a delay of 787 days could be entertained, and whether the rejection of the belated claim under the liquidation regulations called for interference.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the liquidation regulations requires claims to be lodged within the time prescribed in the public announcement, and the liquidation process is intended to proceed within strict timelines. The Court held that the prescribed period under Regulation 12(2)(b) could not be treated as a basis for entertaining an inordinate and unexplained delay. Even assuming the timeline to be directory, a claimant was still required to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The pendency of customs proceedings, the fact that the claimant was a authority, and reliance on general principles of limitation did not furnish a valid basis to revive a stale claim in a liquidation process that had already advanced substantially.

Conclusion: The belated claim remained barred and the rejection of the claim was upheld; no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: In liquidation proceedings, a claim filed beyond the prescribed period cannot be entertained merely because the claimant is a governmental authority or because related recovery proceedings were pending, unless the delay is satisfactorily explained within the statutory framework.

---