TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in favour of the Petitioner's company in the light of the Clause 8.4 (Annexure P/8) of resolution plan dated 17.02.2023, which is accepted by COC and approved by the NCLT vide order dated 18.10.2023. c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case against the Respondents and in favour of the Petitioners be granted." 2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under: Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of iron and steel products. The petitioner is having two units situated on Plot No. 159 and Plot No. 164-C, Industrial Area, Sector III, Pithampur Distt. Dhar. These two plots were initially leased to M/s Mittal Corp Ltd. The Mittal Corp Limited was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and public announcement in that regard was made for submission of claims to be filed by the creditors. Pursuant to such public announcement, the respondent has submitted a claim before the resolution profession under the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person Regulation 2016[referred to as 'Regulation, 2016....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 434/MB/C-II/2018 has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the petitioner and has also passed an order for merger of M/s Mittal Corp Ltd. into Shyam Sel and Power Ltd.. Necessary information was given to the respondents regarding the order passed by NCLT and about the approval of Resolution Plan and merger of M/s Mittal Corp Limited into Shyam Sel and Power Limited under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act, 2016[referred to as 'Act of 2016'] with a request for the mutation as well as for transferring the registered lease in the name of petitioner. However, despite numerous reminders and clearing all the dues as per the approved Resolution Plan, and also after providing the entire documents reminder etc., the respondents have not mutated the name of the petitioner's company in the official record and have not transferred the lease in the name of the petitioner as per Clause 8.4 (AMALGAMATION SCHEME) of the Approved Resolution Plan. ii. It is further submitted that against the action on the part of respondents by issuance of such arbitrary letter dated 16.06.2025, the present petition. iii. It is submitted that due to non-compliance on the part of the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.2025 is required to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents by drawing the attention of this Court towards the averments made in the reply submitted that the answering respondents have raised demand for transferring of lease deed in favour of them and for payment of dues in accordance with law by following due procedure. 6. It is further submitted that petitioner vide its various letters had stated that it has acquired Mittal Corp Limited under IBC on Clean Slate Basis and pursuant to approved Resolution Plan, a sum of Rs. 1,82,915 had already been paid to them by way of demand draft as the full and final payment against the admitted claim of Rs. 1,48,91,132/- towards the lease rent, maintenance and water charges for the period from 2017-18 to 2021-22 and, therefore, all pending amount in relation to any period prior to the effective date being the date of approval of Resolution Plan i.e. 18.10.2023 stands discharged with effect from the 'effective date and, therefore, no amount is payable in respect of dues pertaining to the period till effective date by virtue of approved Resolution Plan. 7. It is further submitted that according to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Parveen Bansal Vs. Amit Spinning Industries Ltd. In CA No.360 (PB) 2018 in CP No. (IB) 131 (PB)/2017." and therefore, the same is to be setaside, this 'Tribunal' comes to a Company Appeal(AT) (CH) (Ins) No.07 of 2021 resultant conclusion that the said 'Observations' are not in the form of 'imposition of an additional condition' thereby opening up the plan in regard to the 'undecided claims', because of the reason that the 'Adjudicating Authority' is within its limits to express its views/opinion(s). The 'Instant Appeal' Sans merits." 11. I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. There is no dispute that petitioner's resolution plan was duly approved by the COC and thereafter by the NCLT, Mumbai vide order dated 18.10.2023 has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the petitioner and has also passed an order for merger of M/s Mittal Corp. Ltd. into Shyam Sel and Power Ltd, more particularly, Clause 8.4.3. of the Resolution Plan which reads as under: "8.4.3 The approval of the Resolution Plan by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority shall be deemed to include necessary direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed,] guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan. ^2[Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before passing an order for approval of resolution plan under this sub-section, satisfy that the resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation.] (2) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan does not confirm to the requirements referred to in sub-section (1), it may, by an order, reject the resolution plan. (3) After the order of approval under sub-section (1),- (a) the moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under section 14 shall cease to have effect; and (b) the resolution professional shall forward all records relating to the conduct of the corporate insolvency resolution process and the resolution plan to the Board to be recorded on its database." 16. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ghanashyam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Goel and Another(supra) reads as under: "16. In view of the above discussion, the resolution plan approved on 21-5-20192 is binding on the first respondent. Therefore, the subsequent demand raised by the first respondent for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 is invalid. 17. Once the resolution plan is approved by NCLT, no belated claim can be included therein that was not made earlier. If such demands are taken into consideration, the appellants will not be in a position to recommence the business of the CD on a clean slate. On this aspect, we may note what is held in para 107 of the decision of this Court in Essar Steel (CoC)3. Para 107 reads thus: (SCC p. 616) "107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgments 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 with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been acce....