Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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