Recent important judgments on acceptance and rejection of “Belated Claim” under Insolvency proceedings (CIRP)

Decoding the Code
Track Recent Trends of Judiciary on IBC

Recent important judgments on acceptance and rejection of “Belated Claim” under Corporate Insolvency proceedings (CIRP)


Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST Vs. Shri Anish Niranjan Nanavaty RP (2023) 798 NCLT: NCLT allows claim of Entry Tax after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC on the basis of books of accounts and records of the Corporate Debtor.

Suraksha Realty Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anuj Bajpai (2023) 709 NCLAT: No claim after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC even the Resolution plan is still pending for approval of the Adjudicating Authority.

Gyan Chandra Misra RP Vs. Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 698 NCLAT: For non-filing of claim by Management of Claimant/Creditor in a CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, the Resolution Professional of Claimant/Creditor is fully entitled to take appropriate proceedings against the Ex-Management and the benefits of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing belated claim is not available in case where fraud was played in the Claimant/Creditor Company and not in the Corporate Debtor.

V.K. Abdul Rahim Vs. Jasin Jose, RP/ Liquidator (2023) 632 NCLAT: IBC is a time bound process and the Liquidator cannot accept a belated Claim.

Deputy Commissioner, UTGST, Daman Vs. Rajeev Dhingra IRP (2023) 592 NCLAT: From a plain reading of the CIRP Regulation 12, RP can accept the claim as per extended period as provided in CIRP Regulation 12(2). After extended period of 90 days of the insolvency commencement date, the IRP/RP is not obliged to accept the claim. Prima-facie, the said CIRP regulation has not provided any discretion to RP for admitting their claim after the extended period.  Therefore, when a resolution plan has already been received and approved by the CoC, we are inclined to agree that if the claims of creditors are accepted at a belated stage after the stipulated time provided for submitting claims, then the possibility of resolution plan failing to materialize becomes very high and tantamount to defeat the objectives of IBC making the CIRP a time bound process.

Abnco Vie Win Ent Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Steamline Industries Ltd.  (2023) 596 NCLT: If Corporate Debtor has not deposited GST charged from the customers and Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s 16 of CGST Act, 2017 claimed by customers has been reversed by GST Department, the customers are required to file their claim during CIRP on time. No claim can be admitted after Resolution Plan approved by CoC.

Suraksha Realty Ltd. Vs. Mr. Anuj Bajpai (2023) 561 NCLT: No claims can be entertained after the approval of Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors (CoC) as it would de-rail the whole insolvency process which has to be concluded within a time bound manner.

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Fanendra Harakchand Munot & Anr. (2023) 97 SC: Commissioner and employees of the EPFO must take steps to ensure that there is compliance with the timelines provided under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the employees of the EPFO must be aware of the consequences in order to ensure compliance, in case there is dereliction of duty, action should be taken against erring employees.

Total Tools & Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs. Mr. CA Sandeep D. Maheshwari (2023) 360 NCLT: NCLT/Adjudicating Authority has the power to condone the delay in submitting claim to Liquidator before the distribution of Assets.

Mr. Toral Rathod Vs. Mr. Gopalsamy Ganesh Babu (2023) 365 NCLAT: Filing of a claim under a wrong category cannot be a substantial ground for condoning the delay.

Sramik Karmachari Union (INTUC) (Cable Works) Vs. RP Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. (2023) 200 NCLAT: The word used in CIRP Regulation 9(2) is ‘may’ as against ‘shall’ in Regulation 9(1) which means that Regulation 9(2) is provided more as a matter of convenience for the workmen or employees but still demands a declaration in respect of claim with proof and verification of the Form ‘Particulars’ mentioned therein.

DBS Bank India Ltd. Vs. Kuldeep Verma, Liquidator of Eastern Gases Ltd. (2023) 103 NCLAT: When a claim is filed in Form D where interest and principal have been included up to the date of liquidation commencement date, claimants cannot be allowed to claim any further amount in addition to the amount which they have claimed in their Form D. Permitting any claimant to increase his claim on any ground or reason will not be in accordance with the liquidation scheme as contemplated by the Liquidation Process, Regulations. When a statute provides for liquidation commencement date as a date up to which claims can be filed and proved, no claim thereafter can be entertained by the Liquidator.


Access all judgments on Belated Claim

Goto Advance Case Laws Search Function and select “Belated Claim” from ‘Sub-Subject’:

Disclaimer: Brief about the decision, summary of case laws, case laws notes, case reference etc. are prepared out of original judgement/rulings. Although, PDF copy attached in case law is downloaded from Court/Tribunal website, however, IBC Laws does not authenticate the contents of these Orders/Judgments. These Orders/Judgments are not certified copies issued by the judicial authorities. Any material hosted on the website does not constitute any opinion of the IBC Laws, and should not be used to frame any legal opinion or be used in legal proceedings. We advise you to refer the same for understanding purposes only and use the original certified copy of the judgment. IBC Laws is not liable for any loss or damage caused to a person because of text/content posted by us on the website. The post and its content, archives and images are Copyright by IBC Laws. Read More