Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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