https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783659 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. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783659 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. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783659