Timely claim submissions are critical in ensuring the integrity of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, and late claims can disrupt the process and are not admissible.

ORDER

1. This application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking consideration of its claim to ensure the successful completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for the Corporate Debtor. M/s Samunnati Agro Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Code via CP (IB) 484/2019 | TP 49/2019, which this Tribunal admitted on 14.07.2020, appointing Mr. Mangesh Vithhal Kekre as the Interim Resolution Professional (continued as Resolution Professional), with a copy of the CIRP order annexed as Exhibit A/1.

2. The Respondent (Resolution Professional) issued a notice initiating the CIRP by publishing Form -A Public Announcement under Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, on 23.07.2020 in newspapers, thereby intimating creditors and inviting claims. A copy of Form A, downloaded from the IBBI website, is annexed as Exhibit A/2.

3. The Applicant (Department) and Respondent (RP) exchanged emails, claim forms, and letters regarding the claim submission, as detailed below:

4. The applicant challenges the Resolution Professional’s (RP) rejection of their Rs. 52,16,26,934 claim due to a 822-day delay, as per the RP’s email dated 04.06.2024 (Annexure A/2), asserting they were neither intimated nor aware of the claim submission deadline; the amount appears as a contingent liability in the Corporate Debtor’s FY 2014-15 and 2015-16 balance sheets under protest/appeal (Annexure A/4) and supporting documents (Annexure A/3). They argue that Regulation 36(2) of IBBI Regulations mandates inclusion of government-initiated recovery proceedings in the information memorandum, which predated CIRP initiation by another creditor, and contend the RP failed to prepare the claim list per the Corporate Debtor’s books, rendering such dues meaningless and neglecting statutory duties by aiding the Corporate Debtor in disregarding mandatory government claims.

5. The applicant seeks admission of their delayed claim citing COVID-19 disruptions, including lockdown-induced procedural departmental issues and officials’ focus on public welfare, which prevented timely awareness of the Corporate Debtor’s CIRP and claim filing. They further argue that, despite the delay, the Resolution Professional should have included the claim in the Information Memorandum under Regulation 36(2) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016—based on the Corporate Debtor’s financial statements, books of account, and prior government-initiated recovery proceedings (predating CIRP by another creditor)—to notify the successful Resolution Applicant of the liability, as the regulation mandates details of material litigation or proceedings by government/statutory authorities.

6. The applicant argues that their claim remains valid for consideration since the Resolution Plan has only been approved by the Committee of Creditors, not the NCLT (Adjudicating Authority), and can only be extinguished post-NCLT approval; citing NCLAT’s ruling in Puneet Kaur v. K V Developers Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 390 of 2020, dated 1 June 2022), claims reflected in the Corporate Debtor’s records must be included in the Information Memorandum for the Resolution Applicant to address, with non- consideration leading to inequitable resolution—which applies here as their claim appears in records yet was ignored. While IBC lacks explicit remedies for late claims, settled law allows cre