TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 977
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner, earlier known as Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited ('MIEL') was admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') on 18.07.2017 by NCLT, Mumbai and Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') was appointed. On 05.01.2018, Respondent filed its proof of claims under Form-B of Regulation 7 of the Insolvency Resolution and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2017 ('CIRP Regulations') under the head of 'Operational Creditor' as follows:- i. Rs. 9,58,88,886/- payable till 18.07.2017 and; ii. Rs. 9,92,86,982/- towards estimated share of expenditure post 18.07.2017. 3. Case of the Petitioner as per the averments in the petition is:- (a). On 26.02.2018, Cash Call No. 20 was issued by the Respondent highlighting that the amount payable by Unresolved Petitioner was NIL and the Participating Interest of the Petitioner was also NIL. After admission of claims and formation of Committee of Creditors ('CoC'), Resolution Professional ('RP') called for Resolution Plans from the public. On 01.03.2018, a Resolution Plan was filed by the Consortium of Aion In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctual or potential Operational Creditors of the Company, whether admitted or not, due or contingent, asserted or unasserted, crystallized or uncrystallized, known or unknown, disputed or undisputed, present or future, in relation to any period prior to the Acquisition or arising on account of the Acquisition. shall be deemed to be permanently extinguished by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan, and the Company and/ or the Consortium shall at no point of time, directly or indirectly, have any obligation, liability or duty in relation thereto." [emphasis supplied]" (b). On 10.04.2018, CoC approved the Resolution Plan by a majority of 98.97%. On 13.04.2018, RP filed an application under Section 30(6) of IBC before NCLT, the Adjudicating Authority, seeking approval of the Resolution Plan and on 24.07.2018, NCLT, while approving the Resolution Plan, directed as follows:- "9. Although the liquidation value due to the operational creditors as per the Code is NIL, on the suggestion made by this Bench, the Resolution Applicant have come forward by filing an Affidavit agreeing to pay Rs.25 crores within a period of one year from the date the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any Consortium Partner from the JOA during any Exploration Period, without completion of its Minimum Work obligation thereunder, amounts to a branch of PSC which has huge financial implications on the partner so withdrawing in accordance with Article 12 of the JOA. ...... H. FOR THAT the Impugned Judgment provides that after the distribution of amounts to the Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors in terms of the Resolution Plan and the liquidation value due to them, all other liabilities and obligations of the Respondent No. 1 stand extinguished in full and all litigations and proceedings in respect to the debts pending against Respondent No. I prior to commencement of CIRP shall stand abated thereby depriving the Appellant of any remedy to pursue the claim not provided for in the Resolution Plan. I. FOR THAT owing to the failure of the Adjudicating Authority in recognizing and dealing with the peculiar position of the Appellant, the Appellant is left remediless in so far as the Appellants claim, to the extent no provided for in the Resolution Plan, is concerned." RELIEFS SOUGHT In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um partners, following which on 23.12.2019, a meeting took place between Petitioner, Respondent and other consortium members, wherein Petitioner's position was that all claims were settled and its Participating Interest was forfeited, thereby leaving no outstanding dues. After exchange of correspondence and on failure of settlement talks, Respondent filed a petition on 14.10.2021 under Section 11 of 1996 Act in this Court seeking appointment of Petitioner's nominee Arbitrator, which was allowed and the Court appointed Petitioner's nominee Arbitrator, whereafter the nominee Arbitrators appointed the Presiding Arbitrator. SLP No. 5092/2022 filed by the Petitioner against the said order was dismissed on 11.11.2022 and since there was no stay during the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, the arbitral proceedings continued. (g). On 12.07.2022, Petitioner filed an application under Section 16 of 1996 Act before the Tribunal, questioning its jurisdiction, followed by an application under Section 12 on 22.07.2022, challenging the mandate of the Presiding Arbitrator. On 07.11.2022, Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 12 of 1996 Act and on 21.12.2022, applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant case, appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator was untenable in law, in light of Entry 16 of Seventh Schedule read with Section 12(5) of 1996 Act, which read as follows:- "12. Grounds for challenge. ... [(5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject-matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator: Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of this sub-section by an express agreement in writing.] THE SEVENTH SCHEDULE ...Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute ... 16. The arbitrator has previous involvement in the case." [emphasis supplied]" 6. Comparison of the observations made in the NCLAT order and the arbitral award reflects a conflict of interest and previous involvement of the Presiding Arbitrator in the case. The issue in Respondent's appeal before NCLAT was whether its claims arising after the ICD were rightly excluded from the Resolution Plan. In other words, Respondent wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Resolution Professional (RP)/ Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) had no 'power' to collate the future claims (as may have been accrued after the insolvency commencement date) (ICD). The NCLAT had also arrived at a similar conclusion by its Order dated 19.08.2019 (which is binding on the parties) and held that any plea on behalf of the Claimant towards future claim accrued after the ICD cannot be considered under Section 18(1)(b) by the Resolution Professional and the future claim made by Claimant was rightly not collated by the Interim Resolution professional/Resolution professional. In light of aforesaid discussion, this Arbitral tribunal is of the considered view and holds that in absence of any power to that effect, since the IPR / RP could not have collated future claims presented by the Claimant, it cannot be held that such future claims were decided on and rejected by the IRP /PR or by NCLT or by NCLAT as it stood extinguished." [emphasis supplied] 7. The observations in the NCLAT order leave no doubt that the arbitral award was nothing but an enforcement of the NCLAT decision and in light of this, it needs no gainsaying that even the exercise of considerin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ast three years as arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue, he may be disqualified under Item 24, which must then be contrasted with Item 16. Item 16 cannot be read as including previous involvements in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties as otherwise Item 24 will be rendered largely ineffective. It must not be forgotten that Item 16 also appears in the Fifth Schedule and has, therefore, to be harmoniously read with Item 24. It has also been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the expression "the arbitrator" in Item 16 cannot possibly mean "the arbitrator" acting as an arbitrator, but must mean that the proposed arbitrator is a person who has had previous involvement in the case in some other avatar. According to us, this is a sound argument as "the arbitrator" refers to the proposed arbitrator. This becomes clear, when contrasted with Items 22 and 24, where the arbitrator must have served "as arbitrator" before he can be disqualified. Obviously, Item 16 refers to previous involvement in an advisory or other capacity in the very dispute, but not as arbitrator. It was also faintly argued that Justice D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be mulct with undecided claims as the same would amount to hydra heads popping up. It is no longer res integra that Claims which do not form part of the Resolution Plan stand extinguished, ensuring that the successful Resolution Applicant starts on a 'clean slate'. 10. The Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited through the Authorised Signatory v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director and Others, (2021) 9 SCC 657, has ruled that once the Resolution Plan is duly approved under Section 31(1) by the Adjudicating Authority, claims as provided in the Resolution Plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including Central/State Government or any local authority and/or guarantors and/or other stakeholders. On the date of approval, all such claims, which are not part of Resolution Plan, stand extinguished and no person is entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of a claim, which is not part of the Resolution Plan. 11. Under Section 2(3) of the 1996 Act, jurisdiction of the Tribunal is barred if the same is expressly barred by law. The Division B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Operational Creditors of the Company, whether admitted or not, due or contingent, asserted or unasserted, crystallized or uncrystallized, known or unknown, disputed or undisputed, present or future, in relation to any period prior to the Acquisition or arising on account of the Acquisition, shall be deemed to be permanently extinguished by virtue of order of NCLT approving the same and the Company and/or the Consortium shall at no point of time, directly or indirectly, have any obligation, liability or duty in relation thereto. Hence, the very initiation of arbitration on non-arbitrable and extinguished claims was unlawful and the arbitral award is void and unenforceable. 13. In Adani Power Limited v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2377, the Supreme Court held that the Resolution Plan, as approved, is binding on all and cannot be made subject matter of arbitration or any other proceedings and Resolution Applicant cannot be saddled with any liability, except what is mentioned in the Resolution Plan. In a recent judgment in Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/s ESL Steel Limited) v. Ispat Carrier Private Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 829, the Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lution Plan, Respondent received Rs. 2,08,79,405/- out of the claimed amount of Rs. 9,58,88,886/-, outstanding as on 18.07.2017. Respondent challenged the order of NCLT before NCLAT on the ground that the Resolution Plan wrongfully excluded the future claims and NCLT erred in approving the same, overlooking that Respondent had raised genuine claims towards outstanding cash calls, plugging and abandonment, default interest etc., which could not be treated as extinguished, since the cause of action, giving rise to these claims, arose later. The appeal was dismissed on 19.08.2019 observing that under Section 18(1)(b) of IBC, RP had rightly not collated the claims falling after the ICD. Apparently, settlement talks initiated been the parties failed and Respondent sent a notice to the Petitioner invoking Article 19.3 in the JOA i.e. the arbitration clause. 17. On 25.03.2022, Arbitral Tribunal passed an order in the nature of a disclosure under Section 12 of 1996 Act and Petitioner informed the Tribunal of the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court. Statement of Claim was taken on record on 16.05.2022 and Tribunal directed the Petitioner to file its Statement of Defence. On 07.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....independent adjudicator for disputes between the parties, a person cannot fall foul of Entry 16. An independent adjudicator or a Judge has no involvement in the disputes as he is adjudicating and this role is different from the role of an advisor or a representative of a party. In Mudhit Madanlal Gupta v. Emgee Enclave LLP and Ors., Comm. Arbitration Application No. 155/2024, decided on 23.01.2025, the Bombay High Court held that it can never be countenanced that an individual's involvement as an independent Arbitrator in prior proceedings would result in that individual becoming a non-independent candidate to be an Arbitrator in subsequent proceedings. In Shyamlal Mukherjee v. Pricewater house coopers Services LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 12477, the Karnataka High Court observed that if a person had decided a dispute earlier or had been appointed as an Arbitrator on two or more occasions by one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties, that by itself will not be a bar for his appointment as an Arbitrator subsequently, if it is shown that the Arbitrator was independent and impartial on the earlier occasion. Therefore, the challenge to the Presiding Arbitrator was baseless a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....over and exploit Contract Area Block CB-ONN-2010/8 for exploration, development and production of petroleum. Consortium members entered into a JOA on 05.04.2013 for carrying out joint operations under the PSC and BPRL and GAIL were designated as operators, with BPRL being the lead operator. Respondent issued a Default Notice to MIEL on 13.04.2016 for default in making payment under Cash Call No. 12 dated 07.03.2016, whereafter Cash Call No. 13 was issued. 23. In October/November, 2016, small quantity of petroleum was discovered, as per the Respondent. On 24.04.2017, Consortium members forfeited the Participating Interest of Unresolved Petitioner, which was NIL. On 22.06.2017, Cash Call No. 19 was issued by the Respondent, where again the amount payable was NIL and Participating Interest of the Petitioner was also NIL. On 18.07.2017, NCLT, Mumbai admitted a petition filed by SBI under Section 7 of IBC. Consequently, CIRP commenced against MIEL and IRP was appointed. 24. Respondent filed its proof of claims on 05.01.2018 with IRP raising two sets of claims: (a) Rs. 9,58,88,886/- payable till 18.07.2017; and (b) Rs. 9,92,86,982/- towards estimated share of expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent as per order of NCLT, Mumbai against the claimed amount of Rs. 9,58,88,886/-. Cash Call No. 24 was issued on 02.08.2019 showing amount payable and Participating Interest as NIL, once again. 28. On 19.08.2019 NCLAT dismissed the appeal holding that by virtue of Section 18(1)(b), RP could admit only pre-ICD claims and he was thus right in not collating post-ICD claims of the Respondent in the sum of Rs. 9,92,86,982/- and in this backdrop, the order of NCLT was unassailable. Settlement talks between the parties having failed, Respondent invoked arbitration and in a petition filed under Section 11 of 1996 Act, this Court appointed the nominee Arbitrator of the Petitioner on 11.02.2022, whereafter the two nominee Arbitrators appointed the Presiding Arbitrator and Tribunal was constituted. This order was assailed by the Petitioner before the Supreme Court but SLP No. 5092/2022 was dismissed on 11.11.2022. 29. During the arbitral proceedings, Petitioner filed an application under Section 16 of 1996 Act challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on 12.07.2022 followed by an application on 22.07.2022 under Section 12 challenging the mandate of the Presiding Arbitrator. Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudication before the Arbitral Tribunal. NCLAT was considering whether the RP/IRP had erred in admitting only claims which were pre-ICD and did not deal with either maintainability or merits of the future claims arising post-ICD, which were the subject matter of arbitration. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the issue, I am of the view that there is merit in this contention of the Respondent. 33. A somewhat similar issue arose before the Supreme Court in HRD Corporation (supra), wherein challenge was laid to the appointment of two Arbitrators, who were Members of the Tribunal. Against one, it was alleged that he had been an advisor to one of the parties in an unconnected matter, whereas the other had previously rendered an award between the same parties in an earlier arbitration concerning the same dispute albeit for an earlier period. Entries 15 and 16 of Seventh Schedule were invoked to contend that both the Arbitrators were ineligible. The Supreme Court observed that the grounds in Fifth and Seventh Schedules have been taken from IBA Guidelines, particularly from the Red and Orange Lists thereof. The Red List consists of non-waivable and waivable guidelines, which c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alification contained in Items 22 and 24 is not absolute, as an arbitrator who has, within the past three years, been appointed as arbitrator on two or more occasions by one of the parties or an affiliate, may yet not be disqualified on his showing that he was independent and impartial on the earlier two occasions. Also, if he currently serves or has served within the past three years as arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue, he may be disqualified under Item 24, which must then be contrasted with Item 16. Item 16 cannot be read as including previous involvements in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties as otherwise Item 24 will be rendered largely ineffective. It must not be forgotten that Item 16 also appears in the Fifth Schedule and has, therefore, to be harmoniously read with Item 24. It has also been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the expression "the arbitrator" in Item 16 cannot possibly mean "the arbitrator" acting as an arbitrator, but must mean that the proposed arbitrator is a person who has had previous involvement in the case in some other avatar. According to us, this is a sound arg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ignore its earlier decision and not to be inclined to come to the same conclusion as before, particularly if the previous decision was carefully reasoned. The vice which the law must guard against is that the tribunal may approach the rehearing with a closed mind. If a Judge has considered an issue carefully before reaching a decision on the first occasion, it cannot sensibly be said that he has a closed mind if, the evidence and arguments being the same as before, he does not give as careful a consideration on the second occasion as on the first. He will, however, be expected to give such reconsideration of the matter as is reasonably necessary for him to be satisfied that his first decision was correct. As I have said, it will be a most unusual case where the second hearing is for practical purposes an exact rerun of the first. 21. The mere fact that the tribunal has decided the issue before is therefore not enough for apparent bias. There needs to be something of substance to lead the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there is a real possibility that the tribunal will not bring an open mind and objective judgment to bear.' 27. Those comments ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. It equally follows that an arbitrator can properly be appointed at the outset in respect of a number of layers of coverage, even though he may then decide the dispute under one layer before hearing the case on another layer.'" xxx xxx xxx 28. We have not been shown anything to indicate that Justice Doabia would be a person holding a pronounced anti-claimant view as in Locabail [Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd., 2000 QB 451 : (2000) 2 WLR 870 : (2000) 1 All ER 65 (CA)]. Therefore, we are satisfied that there is no real possibility that Justice Doabia will not bring an open mind and objective judgment to bear on arguments made by the parties in the fourth arbitration, which may or may not differ from arguments made in the third arbitration." 34. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India (Recusal Matter), (2016) 5 SCC 808, notice was taken of the observation of Grant Hammond, a former Judge of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in his Book Judicial Recusal that a Judge could only be disqualified for a direct pecuniary interest or consanguinity, affinity, friendship or enmity with a party or because he was or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Both sides canvassed extensive arguments on this issue. The claims raised by the Respondent before the Tribunal were: Outstanding Cash Call under JOA; plugging and abandonment costs; default interest; interest; additional interest; and cost of arbitration. Indisputably, since all the claims related to the period post-ICD, they were not collated by the RP. In fact as per the Respondent, the claim relating to abandonment costs arose after the Resolution Plan was approved by NCLT. Before proceeding to determine this question, it would be pertinent to closely look at the law on the subject. In Ghanashyam Mishra (supra), the Supreme Court held that once a Resolution Plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31(1) of IBC, the claims as provided in the Resolution Plan stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, State Government or any local body, guarantors and other stakeholders. It was further held that claims, which are not a part of Resolution Plan on the date of its approval, shall also stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et back on its feet. xxx xxx xxx 65. Bare reading of Section 31 of the I&B Code would also make it abundantly clear that once the resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, after it is satisfied, that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30, it shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders. Such a provision is necessitated since one of the dominant purposes of the I&B Code is revival of the corporate debtor and to make it a running concern. 66. The resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicant is required to contain various provisions viz. provision for payment of insolvency resolution process costs, provision for payment of debts of operational creditors, which shall not be less than the amount to be paid to such creditors in the event of liquidation of the corporate debtor under Section 53; or the amount that would have been paid to such creditors, if the amount to be distributed under the resolution plan had been distributed in accordance with the order of priority in sub-section (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it gets the seal of approval from the adjudicating authority upon its satisfaction, that the resolution plan approved by CoC meets the requirement as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30 is that after the approval of the resolution plan, no surprise claims should be flung on the successful resolution applicant. The dominant purpose is that he should start with fresh slate on the basis of the resolution plan approved. 69. This aspect has been aptly explained by this Court in Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) [Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443] : (SCC p. 616, para 107) "107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment in Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta [Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 388] in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the adjudicating authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich is not part of the resolution plan. 102.2. The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the I&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the I&B Code has come into effect. 102.3. Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued. xxx xxx xxx 123. It is thus clear that according to the resolution plan submitted by EARC itself, had it been a successful applicant, then in that event, the claims made by it would have been irrevocably waived and permanently extinguished and written off in full with effect from the effective date. Had the resolution plan of EARC been approved, then all such debts would have stood extinguished without any further act or deed and approval of the said plan by NCLT would have been a sufficient notice required to be given to any person for such matter. Undispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Resolution Professional, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2005]. However, it is a settled law that dismissal of a special leave petition/appeal does not amount to affirmation of the view taken in the judgment impugned in the special leave petition/appeal. It will also be relevant to refer to the order passed by this Court dated 23-1-2019 [Atyant Capital (India) Fund I v. JEKPL (P) Ltd. Resolution Professional, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2005] while dismissing the appeal, which reads thus : (Atyant Capital India Fund I case [Atyant Capital (India) Fund I v. JEKPL (P) Ltd. Resolution Professional, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2005], SCC OnLine SC paras 3-5) "Civil Appeal No. 10134 of 2018 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 4. The civil appeal is dismissed. 5. It will be open for the appellant to urge all points as may be available to it in law before the appropriate forum, if so advised." It will thus be clearly seen that this Court in Atyant Capital India Fund I case [Atyant Capital (India) Fund I v. JEKPL (P) Ltd. Resolution Professional, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2005] while dismissing the appeal has reserved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble in law for raising its claims is totally unsustainable. 132. Insofar as the observation made with regard to claim of the Jharkhand Government is concerned, it is to be noted that the State of Jharkhand has not even appealed against the order passed by NCLT. Insofar as the claims of labour and workmen are concerned, RP has specifically stated before NCLAT, that whatever claims were received from the workmen were duly considered in the resolution plan. Despite that, observing that a liberty is available to the workmen to raise their claims before a civil court or Labour Court, in our view, is totally in conflict with the provisions of the I&B Code. The same would equally apply to the observation made in the appeal of Mr Deepak Singh claiming to be "operational creditor". 37. In Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 531, the Supreme Court observed that the impugned judgment of the NCLT, wherein it was held that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the RP and the adjudicating authority/Appellate Tribunal can be decided by an appropriate forum under Section 60....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section (1) of section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims which are not a part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceeding in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan. The Bench declared that all dues including statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority if not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no proceeding in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under section 31 could be continued. Paragraph 102 of the aforesaid decision reads thus "In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: (i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 31, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the interim resolution professional/resolution professional, the resolution plan as approved by the National Company Law Tribunal would still be binding on him. xxx xxx xxx 50. In so far the second and third issues are concerned, it is by now well settled that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 31, all claims which are not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceeding in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan. In fact, this court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. [Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 219 Comp Cas 97 (SC); (2020) 8 SCC 531; 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1478.] had categorically declared that a successful resolution applicant cannot be faced with undecided claims after the resolution plan is accepted. Otherwise, this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty the amount payable by the resolution applicant. In so far the resolution plan is concerned, the resolution professional, the committee of credito....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rary to the law laid down by this court. 52. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that upon approval of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal, the claim of the respondent being outside the purview of the resolution plan stood extinguished. Therefore, the award dated July 6, 2018 is incapable of being executed. Consequently, the order dated March 3, 2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court/District Judge-1, Bokaro in Commercial Execution Case No. 21 of 2022 (Execution Case No. 77 of 2018) is hereby set aside. Execution proceedings in Commercial Execution Case No. 21 of 2022 (Execution Case No. 77 of 2018) pending in the Court of Presiding Officer, Commercial Court/District Judge-1, Bokaro, are hereby quashed. Resultantly, impugned order of the High Court dated July 17, 2023 is also set aside." 39. It is thus clear from a conspectus of the aforementioned judgments that all such claims, which are not a part of the Resolution Plan on the date of approval, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of claims, which are not part of the Resolution Plan and so m....