he Assistance Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal), EPFO Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain, Liquidator of Khushi Foods Ltd. - When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021.

NCLAT (2024.09.24) in The Assistance Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal), EPFO  Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain, Liquidator of Khushi Foods Ltd.  [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1743 of 2024] held that; 

• When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021. 

Excerpts of the order;

O R D E R (Hybrid Mode) 24.09.2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel Mr. Ravi Raghunath, appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 

This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 23.07.2024 by which the Application filed by the Appellant in I.A. No. 739 of 2023 has been dismissed. The Application was filed by the Assistant, Provident Fund Commissioner, seeking direction to set aside the communication dated 22.08.2022 and 11.11.2022 issued by liquidator refusing to accept the claim, the Appellant sought a direction to liquidator to make an additional payment of 16,58,159/-. The said application came to be dismissed. 

The Adjudicating Authority noticed that liquidation commencement date was 09.10.2019, whereas the order under Section 7A was passed on 10.03.2021 and order under Section 7Q was passed on 21.04.2021. Hence, the claim of the Appellant for payment of interest and damages was not accepted.

Let Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the amount for damages and interest pertain to the periods 04.04.2016 to February, 18 i.e. prior to the liquidation commencement date, hence the Appellant was entitled for the interest @ 12%.

It is submitted that Adjudicating Authority ought to have allowed the interest @12% till the liquidation commencement date at least. Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that in so far as the claim which was filed by the Appellant. Earlier, was admitted which did not contain any amount of interest and damages which were assessed interest only on 21.04.2021. He has referred to the letter issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner dated 23.04.2021.

 We have considered submission of Counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute in the parties that the liquidation commenced on 09.010.2019. The claim which was filed by the Appellant on the basis of the order dated 10.03.2021 and 21.04.2021 are subsequent to passing of the said order and the said claim was not accepted and declined by the liquidator, which letters were sought to be challenged. 

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the judgments of this Tribunal in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Manish Kumar Bhagat and Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 731 where it was held that the claim under Section 14B which was subsequent to the CIRP could not have been accepted. Another judgment relied by the Respondent in DBS Bank India Limited Vs. Kuldeep Verma in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1048 of 2024 where this Tribunal has laid down paragraph 20 are as follows:

•  “20. We have noticed above that statutory scheme provides submission of claim on a liquidation commencement date which is a fixed connotation. When a statute provides for liquidation commencement date as a date up to which claims can be filed and proved, no claim thereafter can be entertained by the Liquidator. The amount of interest which was retained by the Appellant claiming to be interest in addition to the claim as filed by it in Form D till the date of realization of receipt of the sale, cannot be permitted to be retained by the Appellant and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly passed the order allowing application filed by the Liquidator to hand over the additional amount to the Liquidator. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that out of Rs. 1.84 Crores, amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs have already been paid.” 

The submission of the Appellant that since the claim was for April 26 to February, 2018 interest liability was their @ 12%, which is statutory interest. There is no dispute that assessment for the interest was done in the year, 2021 much after the liquidation commencement date. The claim under Regulation 12 and 16 of Liquidation Regulation, 2016 had to be filed as on liquidation commencement date. When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021. 

We thus, do not find any error in the order of Adjudicating Authority. 

Appeal is dismissed.

-------------------------------------------

Harpal Singh Chawla Vs. Vivek Khanna and Ors.- It is true that when a unit holder is handed over possession and a Conveyance Deed has also been executed, no claim survives of such unit holders.

  NCLAT (2024.12.17) in Harpal Singh Chawla Vs. Vivek Khanna and Ors.  [(2024) ibclaw.in 831 NCLAT, IA No.7853 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2002 of 2024] held that;

• It is true that when a unit holder is handed over possession and a Conveyance Deed has also been executed, no claim survives of such unit holders. 

• Whether a claim filed by a Financial Creditor in a class, deserves admission, is a question, which need to be first looked into by the RP as per the statutory regulations governing the collation and verification of the claim. 

• At this stage, whether the claim filed by a particular Financial Creditor in a class before the RP is admissible or not is a question, which need to be looked into by the IRP and thereafter by the Adjudicating Authority and any aggrieved person has ample remedy by filing application under Section 60 sub-section (5), if any claim has wrongly been admitted, which ought not to have been admitted by the RP.

Excerpts of the Order;

IA No.7853 of 2024

IA No.7853 of 2024 has been filed by the Applicant/ Appellant praying for following reliefs:

• “a) modify the Order dated 28.10.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority in the Company Appeal (AT)(lns) No. 2002 of 2024 to the effect that the CIR Process of the Corporate Debtor may be confined to the single Project namely ‘Spaze Arrow’ for which the Section 7 Petition was filed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and the Committee of Creditors be constituted for the said Project only; and

• b) such other and further orders be passed as facts and circumstances of the case may require.”

# 2. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2002 of 2024 has been filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor – Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. challenging order dated 21.10.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-IV admitting Section 7 Application filed by Respondents (Respondent Nos.1 to 26 – Financial Creditor in a class). The Respondents – Financial Creditors in a class being allottee of a Project namely ‘Spaze Arrow’ located at Sector 78, Gurugram filed Section 7 Application claiming a default on the Corporate Debtor (“CD”) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against the CD. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties by order dated 21.10.2024 admitted Section 7 Application. Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal was filed by Suspended Director of the CD. In the Appeal, following order was passed on 28.10.2024:

• “28.10.2024: Issue Notice.

• 2. Let Reply be filed within three weeks.

• 3. Intervenors are permitted to file the Intervention Application before the next date fixed.

• List this Appeal on 16th December, 2024.

• In the meantime, insolvency in pursuance of the Impugned Order shall go on which will be abide by the result of the Appeal.

• Let the CoC be constituted.”

# 3. The Appellant aggrieved by the order dated 28.102.024 passed by this Tribunal in the present Appeal filed Civil Appeal No.12189 of 2024 – Harpal Singh Chawla vs. Vivek Khanna & Ors., which Civil Appeal has been disposed of by order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08.11.2024. Order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.11.2024 is as follows:

• “The grievance raised by the appellant, Harpal Singh Chawla (a suspended Director of Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd.), is that there are twelve completed projects and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process should not be initiated in respect of those projects.

• We make no comments in this regard, as the matter is sub-judice before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. We leave it open to the appellant, Harpal Singh Chawla, to approach the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal by way of an appropriate application pointing out the relevant facts and consequences for consideration.

• We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the case and the contentions raised by the parties.

• The appeal and pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

# 4. After the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, present IA No.7853 of 2024 has been filed by the Appellant on 08.11.2024 itself, praying for reliefs as noted above. In IA No.7853 of 2024, learned Counsel for the Respondents took time to file reply to the Application, which was allowed on 21.11.2024. Reply has been filed by the Respondent, to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the Appellant in pursuance of the liberty granted on 28.11.2024. Several Intervention Applications have been filed by the allottees in the present Appeal, which shall be noticed hereinafter.

# 5. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant/ Applicant; Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 26 (Financial Creditors in a class); Shri Rishabh Jain, learned Counsel for Resolution Professional (“RP”); Shri Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Intervenor in IA Nos.7995 and 8215 of 2024; Shri Gaurav Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for Applicant in IA No.8241 of 2024; Shri Krishnendu Datta, learned Senior Counsel appearing in IA No.8253 of 2024 and other learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenors.

# 6. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Appellant submits that CIRP against the CD be confined to Project namely – ‘Spaze Arrow’ only. It is submitted that Respondent Nos.1 to 26, creditors in class are of the Project Spaze Arrow and to initiate CIRP against the CD, filed Application under Section 7, which relate to only one Project namely – Spaze Arrow. Hence, the CIRP, be confined to only one Project, i.e. Spaze Arrow. It is submitted that CD is a reputable developer in the National Capital Region and has completed 12 Projects in and around Gurugram region. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has referred to Annexure-2 to the Application, which contains the details of 12 Projects with regard to which Occupancy Certificates have been received. With regard to 05 Projects out of 12 Projects, Completion Certificates have also been received, details of which are mentioned in Annexure-2. It is submitted that some Projects were completed ten years ago. It is submitted that the Projects, which have already been completed, need not be taken in the CIRP. The Projects being complete, most of the allottees have already been handed over possession, who are living in their units. Initiation of CIRP with regard to 12 completed Projects, shall be prejudicial to the interest of the allottees and put the Projects in jeopardy, which have already been completed. It is submitted that CIRIP of the CD at best could have been restricted to the single Project, i.e. Spaze Arrow. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Applicant submits that Appellant has filed Civil Appeal against the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by this Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted liberty to the Applicant to move appropriate Application before this Tribunal. Hence, this Tribunal may modify its order dated 28.10.2024 and confine the CIRP to only single Project, i.e. Spaze Arrow. It is submitted that the Appellant is not shying away from its obligation to compete the development of the said Project, however, due to the non-cooperation of the Co-Promoter, Mr. Ishan Singh by initiating various proceedings against the CD, various order has been obtained including an interim order against the CD. Hence, the CD could not complete the construction of the Project. It is submitted that projected yield returns from the Projects Spaze Arrow is about Rs.250 crores and there being 325 unsold units, Project can very well be completed. The CoPromoter obtained a status quo order on 02.12.2019, vide which the construction of the troubled Project was halted and could not be completed by the CD. It is submitted that in 12 completed Projects, approximately 6700 units have been successfully constructed and out of total number of units, 6653 have been sold to third party allottees and in most of the cases, possession of the same have been either given or have been offered to the respective allottees. The troubled Project Spaze Arrow is also feasible and viable.

# 7. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 26 (the Financial Creditors in a class), who initiated proceedings, submits that the prayer made in the Application, cannot be granted. It is submitted that the CD abandoned the Project Spaze Arrow and according to own case of the Appellant/ Applicant, due to dispute raised by the land owners and due to interim orders passed against the CD, the Project could not be completed. It is submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Adjudicating Authority, the IRP has already issued publication, in pursuance to which Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) has already been constituted, which consist of 100% creditors in a class. It is submitted that IRP has received the claims from the allottees of nearly all Projects. The IRP has admitted claims worth Rs.72 crores from 228 allottees from across all Projects of the CD. The IRP has sent letter dated 13.11.2024 for constitution of the CoC and an Agenda was also issued for the first Meeting of the CoC to be held on 19.11.2024. It is submitted that the CD earlier also had been admitted to CIRP vide order dated 28.10.2021 passed by NCLT, New Delhi in CP(IB) 889 of 2020, which Application was filed by the allottees of Project ‘Spaze Corporate Park’ under Section 7, in which the claims of Rs.610 crores were collated by the IRP from the Financial Creditors. The CD ultimately settled with the original petitioners and the CIRP was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 18.11.2021 in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2021. It is submitted that on account of failure of the CD to abide by the undertaking, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already issued notice on 17.09.2024 to the CD in Contempt Petition No.683 of 2024. The CoC having already been constituted, comprising of 228 allottees across all Projects, confining CIRP to only Spaze Arrow Project would amount to denial of rights to Financial Creditors, who have already filed their claims, which have been admitted by the IRP. It is submitted it is for the CoC to take a decision as to whether Resolution Plan be invited for each real estate Project or a group of Projects of the CD. It is submitted that an Arbitral Award has been passed on 14.09.2022 in arbitration proceedings initiated by CD, according to which the CD is unable to carry on any construction. The CD’s objection against Arbitral Award has also been dismissed. It is further submitted that Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana vide order dated 01.07.2024 has suspended the Project’s license.

# 8. Shri Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ishan Singh, the land owner, referring to his IA No.7995 of 2024 (for Impleadment) and IA No.8215 of 2024 (to initiate criminal proceedings against the CD) contends that CD has no right to carry on any construction on the Project land. Shri Ishan Singh, who is the land owner, who has initially entered into Collaboration Agreement with the CD in the year 2010, had already cancelled the Collaboration Agreement and there is an Arbitral Award dated 14.09.2022, under which the CD has no right to carry out any work in pursuance of Collaboration Agreement. The CD has unsuccessfully challenged the Arbitral Award dated 14.09.2022 by filing Section 34 Application, under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has also been dismissed. It is submitted that CD has no right to carry out any construction on the Project land, which is undisputedly owned by Ishan Singh. It is submitted that the Appellant has concealed various relevant facts in the Appeal and the IA. It is submitted that CD was also earlier subjected to CIRP by an order passed by Adjudicating Authority on Applications filed by allottees of Project ‘Spaze Corporate Park’, which ultimately was settled by the CD before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Appellant has made various false averments and there are huge dues of DTCP on the CD, which have not yet been paid.

# 9. Large number of Intervention Applications have been filed in the Appeal by several unit holders of Project ‘Spaze Corporate Park’ like IA No.8024 of 2024 and IA No.8021 of 2024 – Vandana Raheja and 33 others, who had earlier filed Section 7 Application against the CD being CP(IB) No.889 of 2020, which was admitted on 28.10.2021. Another IA No.8217 of 2024 filed by Lalita Mehta, who claimed that possession and Conveyance Deed have been granted with regard to Spaze Corporate Park. Other IAs, like IA No.8253, 8273, 8030 and 8031 of 2024 have also been filed by different Applicants. With regard to other Projects also, large number of IAs have been filed. IA No.8241 of 2024 has been filed with regard to Project ‘Spaze Tristaar’. IAs, which have been filed for intervention, can be divided in two sets. One set of IAs are with regard to claims filed before the IRP in pursuance of publication issued by the IRP and they are Financial Creditors, belong to different Projects, including Spaze Arrow and Spaze Corporate Park. Other set of IAs are filed by those Applicants, who claim that they are in possession of the units. Some of them have also claimed that Conveyance Deed has been executed in their favour. Several Intervenors have also filed claims before the IRP, only claiming for execution of Conveyance Deed in their favour.

# 10. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

# 11. The submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellant is founded on the ground that CD has completed 12 Projects, apart from Spaze Arrow, with regard to which Section 7 Application was filed. Hence, CIRP be confined to only Spaze Arrow Project. In Annexure-2 to the Application, the Appellant has given the details of 12 Projects, dates of issuance of Occupancy Certificates and Completion Certificates. It is useful to extract Annexure-2 to the Application, which is as follows:

• “1. Spaze Towers Private Limited starting its operation and executed 13 Projects, out of which 12 Projects have been delivered and the occupation certificates have been received. The only 1 Project which is left namely “Spaze Arrow” situated at Sector 78, Gurugram, Haryana under dispute with Land Owner Mr. Ishan Singh.

• Complete details of all the 12 Projects completed by Spaze Towers Private Limited are attached for your kind perusal.

12. A perusal of above Annexure indicate that the CD has obtained Occupancy Certificate and out of 12 Projects, for 05 Projects the CD has obtained Completion Certificate. ‘Occupancy Certificate’ is dealt in Clause 4.10 of The Haryana Building Code, 2017, which is as follows:

“4.10. Occupation Certificate

(1) Every person who intends to occupy such a building or part thereof shall apply for the occupation certificate in Form BR-IV(A) or BR-IV(B), which shall be accompanied by certificates in relevant Form BR-V(1) or BR-V(2) duly signed by the Architect and/ or the Engineer and along with following documents:

(i) Detail of sanctionable violations from the approved building plans, if any in the building, jointly signed by the owner, Architect and Engineer.

(ii) Complete Completion drawings or as-built drawings along with completion certificate from Architect as per Form BR-VI.

(iii) Photographs of front, side, rear setbacks, front and rear elevation of the building shall be submitted along with photographs of essential areas like cut outs and shafts from the roof top. An un-editable compact disc/ DVD/ any other electronic media containing all photographs shall also be submitted.

(iv) Completion certificate from Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) Certified Energy Auditor for installation of Rooftop Solar Photo Voltaic Power Plant in accordance to orders/ policies issued by the Renewable Energy Department from time to time.

(v) Completion Certificate from HAREDA or Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) Certified Energy Auditor for constructing building in accordance to the provision of ECBC, wherever applicable.

(vi) No Objection Certificate (NOC) of fire safety of building from concerned Chief Fire Officer or an officer authorized for the purpose.

(2) No owner/ applicant shall occupy or allow any other person to occupy new building or part of a new building or any portion whatsoever, until such building or part thereof has been certified by the Competent Authority or by any officer authorized by him in this behalf as having been completed in accordance with the permission granted and an ‘Occupation Certificate’ has been issued in Form BRVII. However, Competent Authority may also seek composition charges of compoundable violations which are compoundable before issuance of Form BRVII. Further, the water, sewer and electricity connection be released only after issuance of said occupation certificate by the Competent Authority.

(3) The ‘Occupation Certificate’ shall be issued on the basis of parameters mentioned below:-

(i) Minimum 25% of total permissible ground coverage, excluding ancillary zone, shall be essential for issue of occupation certificate (except for industrial buildings) for the first time or as specified by the Government: Provided, in case of residential plotted, minimum 50% of the total permissible ground coverage shall be essential to be constructed to obtain occupation certificate, where one habitable room, a kitchen and a toilet forming a part of submitted building is completed.

(ii) The debris and rubbish consequent upon the construction has been cleared from the site and its surroundings.

(4) After receipt of application, the Competent Authority shall communicate in writing within 60 days, his decision for grant/ refusal of such permission for occupation of the building in Form BR-VII. The E-register shall be maintained as specified in Code-4.8 for maintaining record in respect of Occupation Certificate.

(5) If no communication is received from the Competent Authority within 60 days of submitting the application for “Occupation Certificate”, the owner is permitted to occupy building, considering deemed issuance of “Occupation certificate” and the application Form BR-VII shall act as “Occupation Certificate”. However, the competent authority may check the violations made by the owner and take suitable action.

(6) If the owner or Architect or Engineer or Consultant as mentioned in Code 4.11(1)(i), (iv), (v) and (vi) as the case may be, submits a wrong report while making application under this Code or if any additional construction or violation is reported to exist at site or has concealed any fact or mis-represented regarding completion of construction of building along with its eligibility for seeking occupation certificate or before the completion of such report, he shall be jointly and severally held responsible for such omission and complaint against the Architect for suspension of his registration and the owner shall be liable to pay for the penalty as may be decided by the competent authority after giving an opportunity of hearing. Further, if it is emerged that the information is concealed by Engineer/ Consultant/ Owner, necessary penal proceedings will be initiated along with debarring Engineer/ Consultant/ Architect from practicing in the State of Haryana.”

# 13. The ‘Completion Certificate’ is dealt in The Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. Rule 16 deals with ‘Completion Certificate/ Part Completion Certificate’, which is as follows:

• “16. Completion certificate/Part Completion Certificate [Section 24].— 139[(1) After the colony has been laid out according to approved layout plans and development works have been executed according to the approved designs and specifications, the coloniser shall make an application to the Director in Form LC-VIII alongwith a demand draft on account of Infrastructure Augmentation Charges as per the rates prescribed in the Schedule-B of these rules if not paid earlier in accordance with the provision of Section 3(7) of the Act.]

• (2) After such [scrutiny], as may be necessary, the Director may issue a [completion certificate/part completion certificate] in form LC-IX or refuse to issue such certificate stating the reasons for such refusal:

• Provided that the colonizer shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before such refusal.”

# 14. The above statutory provisions provide for issuance of Occupancy Certificate and Completion Certificate and the Appellant’s case is that for all 12 Projects, he has obtained Occupancy Certificate and for 05 Projects Completion Certificate. Clause 4.10 as noted above provide that every person who intends to occupy a building or part thereof shall apply for the Occupation Certificate, which shall be accompanied by relevant certificates. Occupation Certificate is, thus, a pre-condition for occupying a premises or building. The facts, which have been brought on record, indicate that in pursuance of CIRP commencement against the CD, the claims have been filed by the allottees of Spaze Arrow and other different Projects. The Respondent has brought on record the list of unsecured Financial Creditors of real-estate allottees as Annexure-B. The Appellant in his rejoinder affidavit has also brought the same list of creditors as on 13.11.2024 as Annexure-30. A perusal of the list of creditors indicate that real-estate allottees, who have filed the claim from Sl. No.1 to 38 are with regard to Project Spaze Arrow and Sl. No.39 to 98 are claims regarding Project Corporate Park. Sl. No.99 to 105, are claims with respect of Business Park and Sl. No.106 to 168 are claims from the Project Tristaar. Sl. No. 169 to 180 are from Project Privy AT 4 and Sl. No.181 to 194 are claims for Project Privy The Address. Sl. No.195 to 202 are claims for Platinum Tower Project and Sl. No.203 to 216 for Project Tech Park. Sl. No.217 to 220 are claims for Project Boulevard-I and Sl. No.221 to 227 are for Project Plazo. Sl. No.228 is a claim for Spaze Delhi. From the list of creditors, it is clear that the claims filed by the allottees were to an amount of Rs.1,819,796,643/-. Out of which, the IRP has admitted claim of Rs.727,507,352/- and claims of Rs.868,961,658 is under verification.

# 15. The Respondents, who had filed Application under Section 7, relate to Project Spaze Arrow, with regard to which claims have already been filed as noted above. The next Project for which several claims have been filed is the Project ‘Corporate Park’. We need to notice certain facts and pleadings pertaining to Corporate Park. As per Annexure-2 to the Application, the Occupancy Certificate for Corporate Park was obtained on 28.01.2020 and Completion Certificate was obtained on 25.06.2021. It is on the record that Company Petition No. IB 889/ND/2020 was filed by Vandana Raheja and 39 Ors. of “Project Corporate Park”, which was admitted by NCLT, New Delhi, Court No.IV by order dated 28.10.2021. Thus, the CIRP against the CD commenced on 28.10.2021, i.e., subsequent to Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate as was obtained by the CD for Project Corporate Park. Against the order dated 28.10.2021, an Appeal was filed before this Tribunal, in which no interim order was passed. Hence, Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2021 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, challenging order of this Tribunal, which Appeal was disposed of on account of settlement between the contesting parties. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.11.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2021 has been brought on record as Annexure-E to the reply filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 26.

# 16. With regard to Project Corporate Park, IA No.8024 of 2024 and IA No.8021 of 2024 was filed by Vandana Raheja and Ors., who had earlier initiated Section 7 Application against the CD in CP(IB) No.889 of 2020. The Applicant – Vandana Raheja in its IA seeks intervention and in IA No.8024 of 2024 detailed facts are mentioned. It is pleaded that Project Spaze Corporate Park developed by the CD is incomplete. Reference to Writ Petition (C) No.8523 of 2020 – Vandana Raheja & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. has also been made, where Delhi High Court has appointed Local Commissioner on 09.02.2021 to inspect the construction. The Local Commissioner has also submitted a Report on 22.02.2021, which has also been brought on the record along with IA No.8024 of 2024. It is relevant to notice that CIRP against the CD for Project Corporate Park had commenced on 28.10.2021, i.e. date subsequent to CD having obtained Occupancy Certificate and Completion Certificate. The said proceedings were ultimately set-aside on account of settlement before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.11.2021. Large number of Claimants have filed claim arising from the Project Corporate Park, as noticed above.

# 17. When CIRP was commenced against the CD, all Financial Creditors are entitled to file claim as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The claim is defined in Section 3, sub-section (6) of the IBC, which is as follows:

• “3(6) “claim” means –

• (a) a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured;

• (b) right to remedy for breach of contract under any law for the time being in force, if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured or unsecured;

# 18. The real-estate allottees are Financial Creditors as per provisions of the IBC and in event any real-estate allottee has a claim against the CD, he is fully entitled to file a claim on commencement of the CIRP against the CD.

# 19. It is true that when a unit holder is handed over possession and a Conveyance Deed has also been executed, no claim survives of such unit holders. Whether a claim filed by a Financial Creditor in a class, deserves admission, is a question, which need to be first looked into by the RP as per the statutory regulations governing the collation and verification of the claim. At this stage, whether the claim filed by a particular Financial Creditor in a class before the RP is admissible or not is a question, which need to be looked into by the IRP and thereafter by the Adjudicating Authority and any aggrieved person has ample remedy by filing application under Section 60 sub-section (5), if any claim has wrongly been admitted, which ought not to have been admitted by the RP.

# 20. As noted above, when the Claimants have filed claims for the Project Corporate Park, which we have noted above and who have pleaded that the Project is not complete despite Occupancy Certificate and Completion Certificate, by confining the CIRP to only one Project – Spaze Arrow, shall tantamount to excluding the claims filed before the RP from different Project. We, thus, after considering the facts and circumstances, which have been brought on the record by the parties, are of the view that at this stage, we are not persuaded to pass an order, confining the CIRP to only one Project, i.e. Spaze Arrow, as prayed in the Application filed by the Appellant/ Applicant. The prayer made in the IA No.7853 of 2024 cannot be allowed. IA No.7853 of 2024 is rejected.

----------------------------------------

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO Vs Mr. Jayesh Sanghajka - we are of the considered view that on approval of the resolution plan by the CoC, there is a closure to all claims. Had the RP taken cognisance of the belated additional claim of the Appellant, it would have resulted in re-opening of the resolution plan which would militate against the statutory scheme of IBC and tantamount to infringement of the clean slate theory of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

 NCLAT (2025.04.08) in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO Vs Mr. Jayesh Sanghajka  [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2100 of 2024] held that.

• The aforesaid dictums make it clear that the admission of claims at a belated stage could potentially perpetuate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a Corporate Debtor endlessly, leading to adverse consequences for the insolvency regime. Thus, the belated additional claim of the Applicant cannot be directed to be admitted in view of the Resolution Plan being already approved by the CoC.’

• The legislative intent behind this is, to freeze all the claims so that the resolution applicant starts on a clean slate and is not flung with any surprise claims. If that is permitted, the very calculations on the basis of which the resolution applicant submits its plans, would go haywire and the plan would be unworkable.”

• In terms of the  Ghanashyam Mishra judgment, the additional claim not being part of the resolution plan stood extinguished and therefore no proceedings could be continued in respect of such claims as allowing such belated additional claims would come in the way of the SRA in reviving the operations of the Corporate Debtor on a clean slate.

• The mere fact that the adjudicating authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump on to the bandwagon.

• All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution Applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution Applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove.

• That once the CoC has approved a Resolution Plan, the same becomes binding on all stakeholders and no additional claims can be entertained. The approved plan, as sanctioned by the CoC is binding and must be implemented as per its terms

• we are of the considered view that on approval of the resolution plan by the CoC, there is a closure to all claims. Had the RP taken cognisance of the belated additional claim of the Appellant, it would have resulted in re-opening of the resolution plan which would militate against the statutory scheme of IBC and tantamount to infringement of the clean slate theory of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Excerpts of the Order;

The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘IBC’ in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 14.06.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-III) in I.A. No. 4898 of 2023 in CP (IB) No. 315 (MB) of 2019. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the IA No. 4898 of 2023 filed by the Appellant seeking admission of additional claim in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP” in short) of the Corporate Debtor. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant- Employee Provident Fund Organization (“EPFO” in short) for not having taken into cognizance of the additional claims filed by them in respect of the Provident Fund and allied dues.

# 2. The chronological sequence of events of the present case which are necessary to be noticed for consideration of the matter by us is as hereunder: On 04.08.2005, a Development Agreement was entered into between M/s Ralliwolf Ltd. and M/s Nirmal Lifestyle Realty Pvt. Ltd. by which M/s Nirmal Lifestyle Realty Pvt. Ltd. assumed all liabilities and financial obligations of M/s Ralliwolf Ltd. On 06.12.2021, the Corporate Debtor-M/s Nirmal Lifestyle Realty Pvt. Ltd. was admitted to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP” in short). On 21.12.2021, the Resolution Professional (“RP” in short) issued a public announcement inviting claims from creditors of the Corporate Debtor. On 21.06.2022, the Appellant-EPFO filed a claim of Rs 7,49,48,021 in respect of Provident Fund (“PF” in short) contributions due from M/s Ralliwolf Ltd. The claim of the Appellant was admitted by the RP on 28.06.2022 and Appellant was categorised as Operational Creditor. The Committee of Creditors (“CoC” in short) of the Corporate Debtor approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Oberoi Construction Ltd.- Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA” in short) on 01.09.2022. This plan of the SRA reflected the amount of Rs 7.49 Cr. claimed by the Appellant which was proposed to be paid in full by the SRA. The resolution plan as approved by the CoC was filed before the Adjudicating Authority by the RP vide IA No. 2455 of 2022 on 03.09.2022. On 11.11.2022, the wage claim of the workmen amounting to Rs 62,44,43,284 was purportedly approved following which additional claim of Rs 34.31 Cr. was worked out by the Appellant as additional PF liability. On 08.06.2023, the Appellant filed an additional claim of Rs 34,31,98,854 for the period 2002 to 2023. This additional claim was rejected by the RP by email on 05.07.2023. Subsequently, on 13.07.2023, the Appellant requested RP to reconsider and admit the additional claim and also filed I.A. No. 4898 of 2023 before Adjudicating Authority challenging the rejection of additional claim by the RP. On 14.06.2024, the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order dismissing I.A. No. 4898 of 2023 filed by the Appellant. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been filed.

# 3. Submission was pressed by Shri Kanhaiya Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that rejection of their additional claim in respect of PF contribution is contrary to established legal principles as statutory obligations like payment of PF dues cannot be compromised under insolvency proceedings. It was contended that PF contributions cannot be set aside by an approved Resolution Plan under  IBC in view of overriding provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act). No approved Resolution Plan can lawfully exclude PF dues, which are legally protected and remain outside the purview of insolvency proceedings. The Appellant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. APFC (AIR 2010 SC 868) which confirm that statutory obligations must be fulfilled in insolvency proceedings. The Appellant has relied on Supreme Court rulings in Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt in Civil Appeal 5910 of 2022 which reaffirm that PF contributions must be protected and cannot be compromised during insolvency resolutions.

# 4. Explaining the genesis of the additional claims, submission was pressed that the wage claims of the workmen amounting to Rs 62.44 Cr. was approved on 11.11.2022 and hence the additional claims of corresponding PF liability arose thereafter. Delay in raising the additional claim subsequent to the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC on 01.09.2022 was therefore neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence on the part of the Appellant. The additional claim was submitted on 08.06.2023 which date was admittedly after the CoC had approved the plan but before the final approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority on 09.08.2024. Since CoC’s approval of a Resolution Plan does not constitute final acceptance, the RP should have admitted the additional claim of the Appellant being legitimate claims. 

# 5. Furthermore, Sections 36(4)(a)(iii) and 155(2)(d) of the IBC explicitly exclude PF dues from the liquidation estate giving it the status of third-party assets and hence PF dues cannot be altered or diminished through corporate  debt restructuring. Therefore, it was asserted that EPFO is not even obligated to file claims since it is the statutory responsibility of the RP to ensure the proper disbursal of PF dues. The SRA is required to settle unpaid PF and gratuity dues on admitted wages. It was pointed out that in the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Mamta Binani & Anr. in CAT(AT)(Ins.) No. 245 of 2022, this Tribunal confirmed that EPFO claims remain enforceable even after a Resolution Plan has been approved.

# 6. Refuting the contentions of the Appellant, Shri Kunal Tandon, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No.1-RP submitted that the rejection of the Appellant’s additional claim was justified as it was filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. The IBC provides for a structured framework for conduct of the CIRP proceedings which does not provide scope for entertaining claims lodged after approval of plan by CoC. It is a well-established principle that once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC, no new claims including statutory dues can be allowed. Once the plan is approved by CoC, it is binding on all stakeholders, including government bodies and statutory authorities, in accordance with Section 31 of the IBC. Any attempt to modify the approved Resolution Plan at this stage runs contrary to the fundamental objective of corporate insolvency resolution, which aims at timely resolution and avoidance of prolonged litigation. Allowing such belated claims would have undermined the integrity and finality of the resolution process. Hence, rejection of the additional claim by the RP was a measure well within the legal framework of the IBC.

# 7. It was vehemently contended that the RP had acted fairly in that the RP had already admitted the Appellant’s initial claim of Rs 7,49,48,021 of the Appellant as an operational creditor. This claim was duly considered by the CoC and the approved Resolution Plan accounted for its full payment. However, nine months after the CoC’s approval of the Resolution Plan, the Appellant attempted to muster up an additional claim of Rs 34,31,98,854 which was justifiably rejected by the RP by way of a detailed communication citing grounds for rejection. The Adjudicating Authority also rightly dismissed the Appellant’s I.A. seeking admission of these additional claims at such a delayed stage. It has been further contended by the Respondent that the Appellant was seeking to introduce this additional claim without any proper determination or authoritative computation of the liability under the EPF & MA Act. The additional claim is unsubstantiated by any proof or evidence in the form of supporting documents. The claim is based on mere arithmetical calculations basis an order from the Industrial Court dated 19.11.2013 relating to compensation for violation of Section 25F of Industrial Dispute Act without proper inquiry. Such claims cannot be entertained when they lack a legal foundation and are filed at an advanced stage of the CIRP.

# 8. In support of their contention, the Respondent No.1 adverted attention to the impugned order wherein the Adjudicating Authority has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 531 and in RP Infrastructure Limited vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr. (2023) 10 SCC 718 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that belated claims should not be entertained, as they could lead to indefinite delays in the CIRP process, thereby affecting the certainty and effectiveness of resolution. Hence, in light of the well-established legal principles and the factual matrix of the present case, it was emphatically asserted that allowing the additional claim after the CoC had approved the plan would have seriously compromised the integrity of the CIRP process and the finality of approved Resolution Plan. Hence, the RP had correctly rejected the claim and the Adjudicating Authority had also correctly affirmed the rejection of the claim by the RP.

# 9. Similar arguments were canvassed by Shri Arvind Nayar, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of SRA-Respondent No. 2 that introducing additional claims after the approval of the Resolution Plan by CoC is untenable and contrary to the established principles of insolvency law. It was reiterated that the Resolution Plan of SRA was formulated based on the claims that were duly submitted and admitted within the timelines prescribed under the CIRP regulations. EPFO had already submitted a claim amounting to Rs. 7,49,48,021, which was duly considered and admitted by the RP. It was pointed out that it is an undisputed fact that the resolution plan submitted by the SRA had been approved by the CoC with 100% voting and had been subsequently approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 09.08.2024. However, the additional claim of Rs 34,31,98,854 was submitted on 08.06.2023 at a stage when the plan had already been finalized by the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority had therefore rightly rejected these claims as allowing any such significant liability at this belated stage would have jeopardized the commercial and financial viability of the plan. Additionally, the statutory duty of the RP is limited to the admission of claims within the prescribed CIRP timeline and any argument that the RP was obligated to suo moto include the additional PF dues lacked legal merit. It was added that the plan has already been implemented and the SRA has already paid the admitted claim of Rs 7.49 Cr. to the Appellant. Hence, the resolution plan cannot be reopened now on the basis of belated additional claims filed by the Appellant. 

# 10. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsels for all the parties and perused the records carefully.

# 11. The short issue before us for consideration is whether sufficient reasons/grounds existed to admit the belated additional claim filed by the Appellant on 08.06.2023 after the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC on 01.09.2022.

# 12. Coming to the scheme of IBC, the statutes of IBC provide that once a CIRP application is admitted under Sections 7, 9 or10 of IBC, the RP issues a public announcement inviting claims from all the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor. Section 18(1)(b) of IBC provides that the IRP shall receive and collate all the claims submitted by creditors to him, pursuant to the public announcement made by him in compliance with Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC read with Regulation 6 of CIRP Regulations. Thereafter the RP is to collate the claims and update the same in the Information Memorandum, basis which potential resolution applicants are expected to submit their resolution plan for consideration of the CoC. The plans are deliberated and eventually approved by the CoC in exercise of their commercial wisdom. After the CoC approves the Plan, the Adjudicating Authority is required to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the plan conforms to the requirements as provided under Section 30(2) of IBC and thereafter the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval to the Resolution Plan.

# 13. Commencing our analysis and findings, we would like to first examine whether the RP had acted in consonance with the provisions of IBC and CIRP Regulations in receiving, collating and verifying the claims submitted to him by the Appellant. In the present case, we notice that after the Corporate Debtor was admitted into the rigours of CIRP on 06.12.2021 and the RP made a Public Announcement inviting claims on 21.12.2021. Thus, prima-facie, there is no trace of any irregularity in the process followed by the RP in inviting claims. 

# 14. We next proceed to examine what steps were taken by the Appellant to file their claims and whether the prescribed time lines for this purpose as laid down in IBC and CIRP Regulations had been adhered to.

# 15. From the facts of the present case, it is clear that the Appellant had filed proof of their claim in Form-B dated 20.06.2022 which was forwarded to the RP on 21.06.2022. This claim had been filed by the Appellant in their capacity of an Operational Creditor. It is also an undisputed fact that this claim of the Appellant for an amount of Rs 7.49 Cr. had been admitted by the RP on 28.06.2022 and duly communicated to the Appellant. The resolution plan of the SRA which was approved on 01.09.2022 by the CoC provided for full payment of the admitted claim of Rs 7.49 Cr. The resolution plan of the SRA as approved by the CoC was filed before the Adjudicating Authority by the RP vide IA No. 2455 of 2022 on 03.09.2022. Given these facts and circumstances, the conduct of the RP with regard to admission of the original claim amounting Rs 7.49 Cr cannot be found to be flawed in any manner whatsoever.

# 16. This brings us to the issue of additional claims filed by the Appellant and the timing thereof. It is an uncontested fact that till the stage of approval of the plan by the CoC, the Appellant had not filed their additional claim. The additional claim was filed on 08.06.2023. The Corporate Debtor had been admitted into CIRP on 06.12.2021 and the 90 days period for filing of claim from the insolvency commencement date stood expired on 06.03.2022. Viewed from this angle, the filing of additional claims entailed a delay of nearly one year and three months. Viewed from the perspective of last date for submission of claims as per public announcement which was 03.01.2022, there was a clear delay of 521 days from the last date of submission of the claim. When counted from the date of approval of the plan by the CoC, nearly 09 months had elapsed since then. That there was delay on the part of the Appellant in the submission of the additional claims is therefore well established.

# 17. The explanation which has been offered by the Appellant for belated filing of the additional claim was that the Appellant became aware of the order passed by the Industrial Court only after it was served with an application filed by Association of Engineering Workers. We are not satisfied with this explanation since the Industrial Court’s order was passed on 21.11.2019 whereas the CIRP had commenced on 06.12.2021. It does not appeal to reason that it could have taken two years from the date of passing of the order by the Industrial Court to compute the additional claims. The Adjudicating Authority in its impugned order has therefore rightly observed that there was sufficient time for Appellant-EPFO to pass an order under EPF Act when the Industrial Court order had passed its orders in 2019 while CIRP was initiated in 2021. The Appellant cannot take advantage of their own laxity in not filing their claims on time to derail the insolvency resolution process.

# 18. Having come to the unambiguous conclusion that there was delay in the submission of additional claims, we would like to address the question as to  whether the RP had mechanically rejected the claims or had taken an informed decision before rejecting the claim. From a plain reading of the CIRP Regulations, RP can accept claims as per extended period as provided in Regulation 12(1) of CIRP Regulations. After the lapse of extended period of 90 days of the insolvency commencement date, the RP is neither obliged to accept any claim nor does he have the discretion to admit claim after the extended period. Further, when we look at the material placed on record, we find that the RP while rejecting the additional claim of the Appellant on 05.07.2023 had maintained due transparency and kept the Appellant apprised of its decision. The rejection email of 05.07.2023 is placed at page 437-438 of the Appeal Paper Book (“APB” in short). The RP while rejecting the additional claim gave detailed reasoning for doing so. It was clearly pointed out that the additional claim had been filed much beyond the time-period prescribed under the IBC and the Regulations framed thereunder. It was also clarified therein that since the Appellant had failed to submit the additional claim within the stipulated time, the RP did not have the powers to condone such delay in the filing of claims thus rendering the claim time-barred. The RP had also mentioned that no supporting documents had been submitted for the additional claim and that the additional claim had been calculated for a period when the establishment of the Corporate Debtor was permanently closed.

# 19. It is however the case of the Appellant that Section 11 of the EPF Act accords statutory priority to the amount payable to the employees for PF dues including interest payable under Sections 7Q and 14B of EPF Act which serve as financial security for employees. Moreover, it being a settled position of law, that PF, Pension fund and Gratuity fund do not come within the purview of  liquidation estate for the purpose of distribution of assets under Section 53 of the IBC, the RP was bound to accept the additional claims. No approved Resolution Plan can lawfully exclude PF dues, which are legally protected and remain outside the purview of insolvency proceedings. Hence the additional claims deserved to be admitted. Per contra, it is the case of both the Respondents that keeping in view the fact that the objective and intent of the IBC is time bound resolution of the Corporate Debtor to maximize value, if new and additional claims are allowed to crop up and are entertained much after the CoC has already approved the resolution plan, the CIRP would be put to jeopardy and the intent of IBC would stand frustrated. Hence the RP cannot be faulted for rejecting the belated claims. 

# 20. At this juncture, it may be useful to notice how the Adjudicating Authority has viewed this delay in the filing of belated additional claims. After adverting reference to the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Essar Steel and in RP Infrastructure Limited judgements supra, the Adjudicating Authority has returned the following findings as reproduced hereunder:

• ‘23. Therefore, the settled law on this issue is that no claims can be submitted at a belated stage especially after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.

• 24. In the present case, the resolution plan was approved by the CoC on 01.09.2022 and the additional claim was filed by the Applicant on 08.06.2023, after more than 9 months of resolution plan being approved by the CoC and after the resolution plan was filed for approval before this Tribunal.

• 25. The aforesaid dictums make it clear that the admission of claims at a belated stage could potentially perpetuate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a Corporate Debtor endlessly, leading to adverse consequences for the insolvency regime. Thus, the belated additional claim of the Applicant cannot be directed to be admitted in view of the Resolution Plan being already approved by the CoC.’

# 21. It is well known that the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the clean slate theory through several of its judgements which have amplified that no surprise claims should be flung on the SRA beyond the scope of the approved resolution plan. The essence of the fresh slate principle has been adumbrated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in their judgement in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (2021) 9 SCC 657 which is as hereunder:

• “86. As discussed hereinabove, one of the principal objects of I&B Code is, providing for revival of the Corporate Debtor and to make it a going concern. I&B Code is a complete Code in itself. Upon admission of petition under Section 7, there are various important duties and functions entrusted to RP and CoC. RP is required to issue a publication inviting claims from all the stakeholders. He is required to collate the said information and submit necessary details in the information memorandum. The resolution applicants submit their plans on the basis of the details provided in the information memorandum. The resolution plans undergo deep scrutiny by RP as well as CoC. In the negotiations that may be held between CoC and the resolution applicant, various modifications may be made so as to ensure, that while paying part of the dues of financial creditors as well as operational creditors and other stakeholders, the Corporate Debtor is revived and is made an ongoing concern. After CoC approves the plan, the Adjudicating Authority is required to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, that the plan conforms to the requirements as are provided in subsection (2) of Section 30 of the I&B Code. Only thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority can grant its approval to the plan. It is at this stage, that the plan becomes binding on Corporate Debtor, its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution Plan. The legislative intent behind this is, to freeze all the claims so that the resolution applicant starts on a clean slate and is not flung with any surprise claims. If that is permitted, the very calculations on the basis of which the resolution applicant submits its plans, would go haywire and the plan would be unworkable.”

# 22. In the facts of the present case, there is no dispute with the facts that the additional claims made by the Appellant were placed before the RP by the Appellant after approval of the resolution plan by the CoC. In terms of the  Ghanashyam Mishra judgment, the additional claim not being part of the resolution plan stood extinguished and therefore no proceedings could be continued in respect of such claims as allowing such belated additional claims would come in the way of the SRA in reviving the operations of the Corporate Debtor on a clean slate.

# 23. It has also been clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s RP Infrastructure Ltd. vs Mukul Kumar & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021 that after the resolution plan is approved by the CoC but pending before the Adjudicating Authority, no new claims can be thrust upon the resolution applicant. The relevant excerpts of the judgement read as under: 

• “19.The second question is whether the delay in the filing of the claim by the Appellant ought to have been condoned by the Respondent No. 1. The IBC is time bound process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which the time can be increased. The question is whether the present case would fall within those parameters. The delay on the part of the Appellant is of 287 days. The Appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the corporate debtor is an undoubted fact. We believe that the Appellant ought to have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid circumstances to find out whether the corporate debtor was undergoing CIRP. The Appellant has been deficient on this aspect. The result, of course, is that the Appellant to an extent has been left high and dry.

• 21. The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in there opening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar person who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel, the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC.

• 22. We have thus come to the conclusion that the NCLAT’s impugned judgment cannot be faulted to reopen the chapter at the behest of the appellant. We find it difficult to unleash the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the resolution applicant.

• 23. The mere fact that the adjudicating authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump on to the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel, the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the CoC.”

24. In yet another judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors 2019 SCC Online SC 1478 has articulated the fresh slate theory and held:

• “105. Section 31(1) of the Code makes it clear that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors, it shall be binding on all stakeholders including guarantors. This is for the reason that this provision ensures at the successful resolution applicant starts running the business of the corporate debtor on a fresh slate as it were.

• 107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment 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 accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution Applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution Applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution Applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, the NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count”.

# 25. From a reading of the above three judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have no doubt in our minds that once the CoC has approved a Resolution Plan, the same becomes binding on all stakeholders and no additional claims can be entertained. The approved plan, as sanctioned by the CoC is binding and must be implemented as per its terms. Any deviation at this stage would compromise the very purpose of insolvency resolution. If belated claims of creditors are casually and mechanically accepted by the RP even after approval of the plan by the CoC, it would imperil the successful resolution of the Corporate Debtor and frustrate the objectives of IBC.

# 26. This brings us to the judgements relied upon by the Appellant in support of their contention that the additional claims being statutory, the same should have been entertained. We have no quarrel with the proposition of law contained in the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. APFC (AIR 2010 SC 868) which held that statutory obligations are required to be fulfilled in insolvency proceedings. However, in taking care of these statutory obligations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not dispense with the filing of such claims on time. We must add here that the reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Mamta Binani in CA(AT)(Ins.) No. 245 of 2022 is also misplaced since in that case, the Appellant had filed their claim before the approval of the plan by the CoC thereby making the facts clearly distinguishable from the present case wherein the claims were filed after the approval of the plan by the CoC.

# 27. Having noticed the statutory framework and the purpose and objective of the IBC as well as clean slate theory propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court which has been reaffirmed time and again, we are of the considered view that on approval of the resolution plan by the CoC, there is a closure to all claims. Had the RP taken cognisance of the belated additional claim of the Appellant, it would have resulted in re-opening of the resolution plan which would militate against the statutory scheme of IBC and tantamount to infringement of the clean slate theory of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further when the claims have been filed belatedly, the RP’s action to reject the claim by way of a reasoned reply to the Appellant cannot therefore be put to fault. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error, in the given facts and circumstances, in upholding the decision of the RP to reject the belated additional claims of the Appellant.

# 28. In result, we are of the view that no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the additional claims of the Appellant. We do not find any cogent grounds which warrants any interference in the impugned order. The Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

-------------------------------------------------