https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784969 Whether the appellant's claim constituted "financial debt" under s.5(8) IBC and thus should have been classified as a financial creditor: the Tribunal held the RP's List of Creditors (which categorized the claim as "other creditors") was binding where the appellant never contested its non-inclusion in a creditor class during CIRP; on that legal basis the treatment in the approved resolution plan did not violate s.30(2) IBC, and the claim was properly treated as other creditor. Distinguishability of precedent cited by appellant: the Canara Bank decision was inapposite because there the creditor had filed as a financial creditor and challenged RP's rejection prior to plan approval; consequently, appeal dismissed, and appellant may nonetheless pursue execution of a DRT decree against the corporate debtor. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:41:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784969 Whether the appellant's claim constituted "financial debt" under s.5(8) IBC and thus should have been classified as a financial creditor: the Tribunal held the RP's List of Creditors (which categorized the claim as "other creditors") was binding where the appellant never contested its non-inclusion in a creditor class during CIRP; on that legal basis the treatment in the approved resolution plan did not violate s.30(2) IBC, and the claim was properly treated as other creditor. Distinguishability of precedent cited by appellant: the Canara Bank decision was inapposite because there the creditor had filed as a financial creditor and challenged RP's rejection prior to plan approval; consequently, appeal dismissed, and appellant may nonetheless pursue execution of a DRT decree against the corporate debtor. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784969