TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court - II) in I.A. No.1697/2022. The adjudicating authority rejected the IA filed by the appellant, aggrieved by which order, this appeal has been filed. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal are: i. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor - J.P. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. commenced vide order dated 26.02.2020. Publication was made and claims were invited and last date for submission of claim was 13.03.2020. ii. Appellant submitted its claim on 24.02.2022 i.e., after inordinate delay. Appellant's claim having not been admitted, an I.A. was filed by the appellant being I.A. No. 1697/2022 seeking admission of the belated claim of the appellant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....part of the resolution plan and all claim shall stand extinguished by approval of the resolution plan, no relief can be granted to the appellant in this appeal. It is further submitted that appellant has not even challenged the order dated 18.03.2025 approving the resolution plan, hence appeal need to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute between the parties with respect to the facts and sequence of the events. The claim was filed by the appellant after expiry of the date for submission of the claim. The copy of the order dated 09.03.2025 has been brought on the record which indicate that resolution plan has been approved.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the claim of Rs. 8,66,89,866/- is accepted, which has been admitted by the RP, the Resolution Plan in no manner is affected, nor payout to the Operational Creditor shall be changed. 26. In result of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the Appellant's submission that his claim ought to have been accepted only for an amount of Rs. 3,40,46,082/-, after adjusting set-off of the amount of Rs. 5,56,59,526/- deserve to be accepted, which in no manner shall affect the approval of the Resolution Plan or the impugned order or its implementation. 27. In result of the above discussion, we dispose of the Appeal in following manner: (I) The order impugned dated 11.08.2023 approving the Resolution Plan of the CD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to how the limitation issue has been considered by the tribunal without discussing the various dates on which the claim has arisen, filed and preferred by the appellant and how the part of the claim has been admitted by the RP if the same was barred by limitation and also as whether this issue was existing before the tribunal at all and also whether any discussion has been made by the tribunal in the background of various provisions of the buyer credit guarantee policy, he fairly submits that it would be better if the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for deciding these issues afresh. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2/ SRA is also of the view that it would be better if the matter is remanded back to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emented. Counsel for the SRA has submitted that now it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Through the Authorized Signatory Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director and Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 657, that once the resolution plan is finalized then all the claims get extinguished. In this context regard may be had to Para 102.1 of the aforesaid decision which read as under:- "102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor an....