J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:

(a) Issue an appropriate writ/order or direction to the Respondents set aside/ quash the proceedings for recovery of Rs.2,46,78,328/- initiated by the Respondents vide their impugned letters dated 04.08.2023 and 03.08.2023 respectively, against the Petitioner company as the same concerns the time period prior to approval of the Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Tribunal under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016;

(b) Issue an appropriate writ/order or direction to Respondent No.l & 2 to not to initiate any kind of proceedings for the time period prior to approval of Resolution Plan by the NCLT on 08.02.2021;

(c) Pass any such appropriate order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, in the year 2010, the petitioner-company was sanctioned projects under the Swanajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana by respondent no. 2-Union of India through respondent no. 1-NABARD Consultancy Services Private Limited. Certain amount was released by the Union to the petitioner under these projects in the year 2015. The impugned recovery action is with respect to this amount.

3. In the year 2019, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against it before the National Company law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT). On 16.10.2020, a resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors in the said proceedings. Subsequently on 08.02.2021, the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the short point raised in the instant writ petition is whether the respondents can continue or initiate recovery of a purported claim arising prior to approval of the resolution plan in the CIRP proceedings. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.¹2021 9 SCC 657, and asserts that the issue is no more res integra, since the Court has held that all claims which are not part of the resolution plan would stand extinguished and no proceedings may be initiated or continued with respect to such claims.

5. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents oppose the said submissions and contend that the decision in Ghanashyam Mishra is distinguishable on facts, and therefore inapplicable to the present case. They contend that in the said decision, the approved resolution plans had been filed by bona-fide third party resolution applicants, whereas in the instant case, the successful resolution applicant was a promoter/director of the petitioner-company prior to the CIRP proceedings. Therefore, according to them, the entire process is marred by lack of bona-fides.

6. Further, they contend that, despite being in continuous communication with the respondents even after the commencement of the CIRP proceedings, the petitioner had not brought the same to their notice, and had materially suppressed this information with a view to deny them their legitimate dues. Therefore, according to them the impugned recovery action is valid.

7. Additionally, they contend that, under Section 31 of the IBC, the resolution plan would be binding and claims not included therein would stand extinguished only so far as statutory dues of State-instrumentalities are concerned, whereas, the impugned recovery action is with respect to dues arising out of contract.

8. At the outset, it is pertinent to take note of the decision in Ghanashyam, the relevant portion of which is extracted below, for reference:

“102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under:

102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the re