SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2139

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Brajendra Mani Tripathi, Member (Judicial), Man Mohan Gupta, Member (Technical)
Engineer & Electrical Goods Majdoor Sangh – Appellant
Versus
Naveen Khandelwal – Respondent
IA/140(MP)2024|TP 179 of 2019|CP(IB)/532(MP)2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kuldeep K. Adesara
For the Respondents: Rohit Dubey

The waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a rigid statutory framework where priority is determined by the nature and age of dues relative to the liquidation date; judicial crystallization of old claims does not override the statutory time limits for priority classification.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 53 - Waterfall mechanism - Priority of claims - Claims of workmen and employees - Crystallized dues via Recovery Certificates - Limitation of statutory period under Section 53 - Held, that priority under Section 53 is based on the nature and period of dues relative to the liquidation commencement date and is not extended to claims beyond the statutory window even if adjudicated or crystallized by judicial orders. (Paras 6.ii, 6.viii, 6.ix)

(B) Liquidation Process - Distribution of assets - Distribution made by Liquidator in accordance with waterfall mechanism - Reopening of process - Interference by Tribunal - Held, that in the absence of material irregularity or illegality, the court will not unsettle a concluded liquidation process or direct the recall of funds already distributed. (Paras 6.xi, 6.xiii)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a workers' union, sought priority for its members' claims (amounting to Rs. 29.70 crores and Rs. 1.60 crores) over unsecured creditors, arguing that these claims were supported by old Recovery Certificates (RRCs) dating back to 2007. The Liquidator admitted the claims but classified them under Section 53(1)(f) of the Code, arguing they fell outside the 24-month/12-month priority window preceding the liquidation date. The applicant had previously engaged in extensive litigation, including high court proceedings, for recovery.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal found that the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 is a complete and rigid code. While the claims were genuine and adjudicated, they could not be granted priority over unsecured creditors because they exceeded the statutory time limit defined by the Code. The tribunal also refused to reverse the distributions already made as the process was followed in accordance with the law.

Issues: 1. Whether adjudicated claims arising from RRCs are entitled to Section 53 priority if they pertain to periods beyond the statutory 24-month or 12-month window? 2. Whether the tribunal should direct the liquidator to claw back distributed funds and reopen the liquidation process?

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that Section 53 is a self-contained code that mandates strict adherence to its ranking of claims. It does not provide for exceptions based on the date of crystallization or the existence of prior judicial orders, thus the statutory limitation on the period of dues must be strictly respected.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of application seeking priority for workers' claims and stay of liquidation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. liquidator's contention on strict adherence to section 53 waterfall ranking. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's interpretation of section 53 as a complete code barring extensions for crystallized claims. (Para 6)

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER

Delivered on 15/04/2026

The case is fixed for pronouncement of the order.

The order is pronounced in open Court vide separate sheet.

Sd/- Sd/-

MAN MOHAN GUPTA BRAJENDRA MANI TRIPATHI

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Tomar

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

BENCH AT INDORE

IA/140(MP)2024

IN

TP 179 of 2019

[CP(IB)/532(MP)2019]

[An Application filed under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 r.w. Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 ]

1. Engineer & Electrical Goods

Majdoor Sangh, Through its

President Radheshyam C. Verma,

9/4, Khari Bawdi, Dewas,

Madhya Pradesh-455001 ......Applicant No.1

Vs

1. Mr. Naveen Khandelwal,

Liquidator of

M/s Gajra Bevel Gears Limited

Address: 206, Navneet Plaza,

5/2 Old Palasia,

Indore-452001 ......Respondent No. 1

2. M/s Abhimanyu Agro Private Limited,

6, Race Course Road,

Indore-452001 ......Respondent No. 2

3. Madhya Pradesh Finance Corporation,

"Finance House", Agra Bombay Road,

Indore-452001 ......Respondent No. 3

4. M/s Rani Agro Private Limited,

395-A, Village Lohar Pipaliya,

A.B. Road, Dewas,

Madhya Pradesh-455001 ......Respondent No. 4

Appearance:

For the Applicant : Mr. Kuldeep K. Adesara, Adv

For the Respondent : Mr. Rohit Dubey, Adv

O R D E R

1. This is an Application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 r.w. Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 , with the following prayers:

i. This Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may be pleased to pass an order under Section 60(5) of the Code read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 to hold and declare and direct the Liquidator that the claims of the Workers amounting to the tune of Rs. 29,70,31,503/- be admitted u/s 53(1)(b)(i) of I.B. Code, 2016 against the same being admitted u/s 53(f) of I.B. Code, 2016 by Liquidator and further hold and declare and direct the Liquidator that the claims of Employees admitted to the tune of Rs. 1,60,21,780/- be admitted u/s 53(c) of 1.B. Code, 2016 against the same being admitted u/s 53(f) of 1.B. Code, 2016;

ii. This Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may be pleased to hold and declare that the claims of the Workers ought to be admitted u/s 53(1)(b)(i) of I.B. Code, 2016 and claims of Employees ought to be admitted u/s 53(c) of I.B. Code, 2016 in priority over the claims of the Unsecured Creditor admitted u/s 53(d) as the claims of the Workers and Employees are made under Regulation 19(3)(b)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 on the basis of RRCs orders passed since January 2008 for the debts due since January 2007;

iii. This Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority be pleased to direct the Liquidator for transferring back the amount of the sale proceeds distributed to Unsecured Creditor M/s Abhimanyu Agro Private Limited and distributed to Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation and M/s Rani Agro Private Limited in absence of the same being stakeholders of Corporate Debtor after holding that the claims of the Workers and Employees are required to be distributed in priority over the claims of Unsecured Creditors admitted u/s 53(d) of 1.B. Code, 2016;

iv. This Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority be pleased to seek clarification from the Liquidator for the distribution of the amount of sale proceeds received from the successful bidder to Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation to the tune of Rs. 5,29,27,707/- and M/s Rani Agro Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 54,37,440/- aggregating to an amount of Rs. 5,83,65,147/- over the claims of the Workers and Employees admitted when the same are not the stakeholders to the class of stakeholders mentioned in the 19th SCC meeting held by the Liquidator on 09/02/2024;

v. This Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority be pleased to stay the closure of the Liquidation process of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top