2025 (3) TMI 439 - AT - IBC

Refusal to entertain the belated claims of the Appellants - HELD THAT - When the plan has already been approved by both the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority it cannot be reopened now on the basis of claims being belatedly agitated by the Appellant who for no justifiable reasons had clearly dropped the guard of being vigilant in pursuing his claims within the time-lines laid down by IBC. Any indulgence shown by way of belated admittance of claim after the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority is also likely to jeopardise the CIRP since the resolution plan is already under implementation. The Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in the given facts and circumstances in not acceding to the request of the Appellant for admission of their claims. Conclusion - Reopening the approved resolution plan based on belated claims would jeopardize the CIRP s effectiveness. There are no cogent grounds which warrants any interference in the impugned order - The impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority not suffering from any infirmities is hereby affirmed - appeal dismissed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal considered four appeals arising from a common Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code proceedings. The Appellants, home-buyers in a project named "Earth Iconic," filed belated claims after the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellants argued that their claims were not factored into the resolution plan, leading to prejudice. They contended that the RP failed to communicate the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) to them personally, as required by regulations. The Appellants sought directions for the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to accept their claims, citing unfair treatment and misuse of the IBC to extinguish their claims.The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events, noting that the Appellants filed their claims significantly after the prescribed deadlines. The RP had invited claims in 2019, and the resolution plan was approved in 2021, while the Appellants filed their claims in 2023. The Tribunal found that the belated claims were not reflected in the Information Memorandum due to the substantial delay. The resolution plan clauses provided for acceptance of belated claims within specified timeframes, which the Appellants failed to meet.The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' arguments, emphasizing the importance of timely claims in the CIRP process. It cited legal precedents that upheld the freezing of claims once a resolution plan is approved, preventing the introduction of new claims that disrupt the resolution process. The Tribunal concluded that reopening the approved resolution plan based on belated claims would jeopardize the CIRP's effectiveness and affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's decision to dismiss the Appellants' claims.In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, dismissing the appeals due to the belated nature of the Appellants' claims and the potential disruption to the resolution process if such claims were entertained after the plan's approval. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely and transparent claims in insolvency proceedings to ensure the efficiency and fairness of the resolution process.