MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Timelines for Claims in Insolvency Cases, Cautions Against Reopening Undecided Claims

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on September 11, 2023, upheld the strict timelines for the inclusion of claims in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cases, cautioning against reopening claims after the approval of resolution plans. The judgment, authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, carried far-reaching implications for insolvency proceedings, emphasizing the importance of adherence to established procedures.

The case, M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr., revolved around the inclusion of a belated claim in the CIRP of a Corporate Debtor. The appellant sought to include a claim related to an arbitral award, which was in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The Corporate Debtor had initiated the CIRP process for several real estate projects, and a resolution plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors (COC).

In a key observation, the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of timeliness in the insolvency process, stating, “The IBC is a time-bound process... Allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon.”

The Court emphasized that the Corporate Debtor had followed due procedures, including making public announcements regarding the CIRP through newspapers, which constituted deemed knowledge for all concerned parties. The appellant’s plea of not being aware of these announcements was deemed untenable in a commercial context.

The judgment also referred to earlier decisions, including the Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited case, where the Court had cautioned against entertaining claims after the acceptance of a resolution plan.

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment reiterates the significance of timely adherence to insolvency procedures and the potential consequences of reopening unresolved claims, providing valuable guidance for future insolvency cases.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2023

M/s. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs MUKUL KUMAR & ANR.     

                                

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/11-Sep-2023_RPS_Infrastructure_Vs_Mukul.pdf"]

Latest Legal News