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) 2526

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Judicial Member, Radhakrishna Sreepada, Technical Member
ICP India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kanekal Chandrasekhar – Respondent
I.A. No. 573 of 2024 in C.P. (IB) No. 357/BB/2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Ms. Darshini

Applications under Section 42 of the IBC must strictly adhere to the 14-day limitation period; failure to file claims within prescribed timelines and lack of sufficient cause for delays bars the court from entertaining appeals once the liquidation process is substantially concluded.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - S. 42 - Appeal against liquidator’s rejection of claim - Limitation period - Statutory timelines are strict - Failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay leads to dismissal of application. (Paras 6, 8, 16)

(B) IBC, 2016 - Moratorium under S. 14 - Suits instituted against Corporate Debtor during moratorium are barred - Decree-holders do not obtain superior status in liquidation waterfall. (Para 11)

(C) Liquidation process - Purpose of public announcement is to provide notice to creditors - Creditors must exercise due diligence - Belated claims cannot derail substantially concluded liquidation process. (Paras 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, an operational creditor, sought to set aside the Liquidator’s rejection of its claim, citing a delay of over a year in claim submission and a failure to file the appeal within the statutory 14-day limit prescribed under S. 42 of the Code. The Applicant argued it was pursuing a separate civil suit; however, the liquidation proceedings had already progressed to the stage of asset distribution.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the application was barred by limitation both in the initial claim filing and the subsequent appeal. It held that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay and that the liquidation process could not be unsettled at such an advanced stage.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay in filing the claim and the subsequent appeal under S. 42, and whether a decree-holder is entitled to special status in the liquidation waterfall.

Ratio Decidendi: Strict adherence to statutory timelines is essential for the insolvency resolution process and liquidation; creditors bear the burden of monitoring public announcements, and decree-holders do not receive preferential treatment over other operational creditors. Result : Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of events regarding the claim rejection and the applicant's appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. limitation period for appeals under section 42 is strict. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. deemed notice via public announcements overrides claims of individual ignorance. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. finality of liquidation process and waterfall distribution priority. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. formal dismissal of the application. (Para 17)

ORDER

1. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Liquidator.

2. I.A No.573/2024: I.A is dismissed vide Separate order.

3. I.A No. 320/2020: Pleadings are complete. They are adjudicating EPFO appeal before the Hon’ble NCLAT, therefore seeks adjournment to report on the same.

4. List the case on 23.06.2026.

-Sd- RADHAKRISHNA SREEPADA

MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

-Sd- SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Gy

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH

(Exercising powers of Adjudicating Authority under

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016)

I.A. No. 573 of 2024

in

C.P. (IB) No. 357/BB/2019

(Application under Section 42 the IBC, 2016)

IN THE MATTER OF

ICP (India) Private Limited

No. 223-A, 4th Cross Road, 3rd Phase,

Bommasandra Industrial Area,

Hosur Road, Bengaluru – 560099 …Applicant / Operational Creditor

Versus

Mr. Kanekal Chandrasekhar,

Liquidator of Southern Batteries Pvt. Ltd.

Reg. No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00642/2018-19/11946

No. 6, “Shree”, 9th Cross, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,

Hebbal Kempapura, H.A. Farm Post,

Bengaluru – 560024. …Respondent / Liquidator

IN THE MATTER OF -

Allahabad Bank ...Petitioner/ Financial Creditor

AND

M/s. Southern Batteries Private Limited ...Respondent/ Corporate Debtor

Order delivered on: 01.04.2026

Coram: 1. Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

2. Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada, Hon’ble Member (Technical)

Parties/Counsels Present:

For the Liquidator: Ms. Darshini

O R D E R

I.A. No. 573 of 2024 in CP (IB) No. 357 of 2019

1. This Application has been filed by ICP (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) on 19.07.2024, under Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”), seeking to set aside the email dated 28.06.2024 issued by the Liquidator rejecting the claim of the Applicant, to condone the delay in submission of the claim before the Liquidator, and to direct the Respondent to admit the claim of the Applicant and make payment in accordance with law.

2. Brief relevant facts of the Application are as follows: -

i. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against the Corporate Debtor, Southern Batteries Private Limited, was initiated on 19.02.2020 on a petition filed under Section 7 of the Code by Allahabad Bank in C.P. (IB) No. 357/BB/2019. Pursuant to failure of the CIRP, the Corporate Debtor (CD) was ordered to be liquidated and the present Respondent was appointed as the Liquidator to conduct the liquidation process in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.

ii. The Applicant is an Operational Creditor engaged in the manufacture and supply of fibre glass products including FRP radome covers, gratings and related items. It is the case of the Applicant that the CD had placed purchase orders for supply of such materials, pursuant to which the Applicant supplied goods and raised invoices. According to the Applicant, while part payments were made, an amount of approximately Rs.22,96,814/- remained outstanding towards unpaid operational dues.

iii. It is submitted that despite issuance of reminders and a legal notice dated 22.12.2018, the CD failed to clear the outstanding dues. Consequently, the Applicant instituted a commercial suit for recovery before the competent Commercial Court at Bengaluru, which culminated in a judgment and decree dated 01.12.2021 directing the CD to pay the decretal amount along with interest and costs.

iv. Thereafter, the Applicant initiated execution proceedings for enforcement of the decree. During the pendency of s

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