ORDER

IA 5128/2024 In C.P. (IB)/2815(MB)2019

1) Though the Counsel for the Liquidator is present, physically, he has not marked the Appearance neither in Attendance Sheet nor in the Chat Box. Mr. Anshu Rathore, Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26 and 27 are present. None present for other Respondents, when the matter is called out.

2) Counsel for the Liquidator seeks further time to file and place on record Rejoinder. It is noted that on the last occasion also, the Liquidator sought time for the purpose. Be that as it may, we allow further time to the Liquidator to file and place on record Affidavit in Rejoinder, well before the adjourned date thereby duly serving a copy thereof to the other side well in advance, subject to payment of cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- in the account Mumbai Company Law Tribunals Bar Association Bank and Branch Axis Bank Ltd. For Branch A/c No. 925020031478122 and IFSC:UTIB0004702, to be paid by the Liquidator out of his own sources.

3) Stand over to 01.04.2026, for further consideration.

IA(I.B.C)4429(MB)2025 In C.P. (IB)/2815(MB)2019

1) Ms. Shivangi Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant is present. Though the Counsel for the Liquidator is present, physically, he has not marked the Appearance neither in Attendance Sheet nor in the Chat Box.

2) Counsel for the Applicant seeks some time to proceed further in the matter, contending that the Arguing Counsel is not available today. Time Granted as last chance.

3) At request, stand over to 01.04.2026, for further consideration.

APPEAL (IBC) 29(MB)2025 In C.P. (IB)/2815(MB)2019

1) None present for the Appellant, when the matter is called out. Though the Counsel for the Liquidator is present, physically, he has not marked the Appearance neither in Attendance Sheet nor in the Chat Box. However, the attendance of Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Ld. Additional Advocate General, Haryana, is mentioned in the Chat Box, perhaps, the same has been marked after the rising of the Bench and without taking leave of this Bench.

2) The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Applicant, viz. Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Kurukshetra, Haryana, praying for the following reliefs:

3) The facts leading to the case in hands are as follows:

a. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the case of the Corporate Debtor has been initiated on 18.07.2020, upon the admission of the Company Petition.

b. The Applicant has filed its claim for Rs. 64,00,44,034/- on 25.03.2021. It is submitted that the said claim was acknowledged on 26.03.2021.

c. Subsequently, this Tribunal passed a Liquidation Order against the Corporate Debtor on 04.10.2023, as no Prospective Resolution Applicants came forward for resolution of the Corporate Debtor. It is further submitted that the Applicant herein was assigned 12.89% voting rights in the Stakeholder Consultation Committee (SCC).

d. The Applicant has filed revised claim, post Liquidation, on 03.11.2023, for Rs. 420,30,97,217/-, which was acknowledged by the Liquidator on 09.11.2023. It is further submitted that the Liquidator vide E-mail dt. 03.01.2024, admitted Rs. 3,76,32,73,054/- while rejecting 43,98,24,163/-, citing that the GST demand was raised via Show Cause Notice (SCN) after CIRP initiation. It is averred by the Applicant that he requested a review on 04.03.2025 disputing the said rejection as arbitrary and contrary to IBC, 2016, and IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, but the Liquidator, in an evasive response dated 07.03.2025, directed DETC to file an appeal under Section 42 of IBC, 2016.

e. The Applicant asserts that Regulation 16 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, allows stakeholders to submit or update claims before the last date, and since its revised claim was filed within the prescribed timeline, the rejection of ₹43,98,24,163/- is unlawful. Additionally, the SCN issuance does not bar an updated claim as the assessment pert