Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 567
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Yogesh Khanna (Member(Judicial)) , Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member (Technical)) ,
M.M.T. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
BD Overseas and Fiscal Services Ltd. – Respondent
CP (IB) No. 203 of 2019 | IA No. 402 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jyoti Kr. Chaudhary, Tejaswini Chandrasekhar, Jatin Chaddha, Sanskruti Jinwal, Sunidi
Claims cannot be admitted after a Resolution Plan is approved if the creditor failed to file the claim within the public notice period and did not seek condonation of delay; furthermore, new regulations cannot be applied retrospectively to benefit such claims.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Filing of Claims - Failure to submit claims within the prescribed timeline following public notice in newspapers - Lack of individual notice does not excuse failure to file claims, especially when no application for condonation of delay was filed. (Para 4, 5)
(B) Statutory Regulations - Prospective Application - Regulation 6A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - Benefit of regulations cannot be claimed for periods prior to their commencement date. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to the admission of claims after the approval of the Resolution Plan despite failing to file the claim within the prescribed period.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional propriety regarding challenging approved resolution plans. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. necessity of filing claims within stipulated time following public notice. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. non-retrospective application of ibbi regulation 6a. (Para 6) |
| 4. dismissal of appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
(Hybrid Mode)
1.15.05.2026: This appeal is against an impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad in CP (IB) No. 203 of 2019 filed by the appellant herein under Section 60(5)(C) IBC, 2016 r/w Rule 11 of NCLT rules, 2016 wherein I.A. No. 402 of 2023 was dismissed. The applicant sought the following prayers in the said I.A:
“a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to allow the present application;
b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the Resolution Plan filed by M/s Steel Cube India, LLP approved vide order dated 20.9.2022 in IA/954/2020 in CP (IB) 203 of 2019 and further direct the Resolution Professional of BD Overseas to consider the claim of the Applicant.
c) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of the present application this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the implementation of the Resolution Plan filed by M/s Steel Cube India, LLP approved vide order dated 20.9.2022 in IA/954/2020 in CP (IB) 203 of 2019.
d) This Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly pass an order admitting the claim of the Applicant of Rs.2,16,22,292/- (Rupees Two Cores Sixteen Lacs Twenty-Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Two only) plus interest @13.75% per annum.
e) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the present application”
2. We have heard the arguments and gone through the impugned order. The appellant seeks to challenge the approval order vide application bearing I.A. No. 402 of 2023 as also sought admission of its claim of Rs.2,16,22,292/-. Qua the prayer of setting aside of the approval order of the resolution plan, the Ld. NCLT held it is not the appropriate forum to grant such prayer and the appellant ought to have file an appeal before this Tribunal. We agree to this.
3. Qua admission of claims, we have perused the paragraph 9 of the impugned order as under:
“9. We have heard both the sides and have perused the records produced before us. CIRP commenced vide order dated 20.01.2020. Form A was published by the RP in Economic Times and Loksatta Jansatta and the last date to file claim was 26.02.2020. Apparently, the Applicant herein has never flied any claim before the RP. Further, no application was filed by the Applicant herein seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim before the RP.”
4. Admittedly, Form-A was published by the Resolution Professional in two newspapers and the last date of filing of the claim was 26.02.2020. The appellant has never filed its claim before the Resolution Professional and even did not file any application before the Ld. NCLT for condonation of delay in filing its claim before the Resolution Professional.
5. The main thrust of argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant before us is no individual notice was given to the appellant and hence, the appellant was not made aware of invitation of claims by the Resolution Professional, hence it failed to file claim in time. Admittedly the Appellant did not file any application for condonation of delay either.
6. Reference is made by the appellant counsel to Regulation 6A of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 but such Regulation 6A came into force only on 16.09.2022, hence, the appellant cannot get its benefit thereof.
7. Considering the submissions, we find no illegality in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly is dismissed. Pending I.A. Nos. 8047, 8105, 8106, 8107 of 2024 are also disposed of.
