M/S Mbl Infrastructure Ltd vs M/S Pradeep Colonisers And Suppliers Pvt Ltd

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 10.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 04.05.2026

+ O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & I.A. 28001/2025 (For Stay)
M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Ms.
Nikita Salwan, Mr. Rachit
Wadhwa and Mr. Bankim Garg,
Advocates.
versus

M/S PRADEEP COLONISERS AND SUPPLIERS PVT LTD
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Rahul
Sinha, Ms. Muskan Rathore,
Ms. Rupal Gupta and Mr.
Shivee Pandey Sinha,
Advocates.

+ O.M.P. (COMM) 470/2025 & I.A. 28061/2025 (For Remand of
limited portions of the impugned award for fresh adjudication)

M/S PRADEEP COLONISERS AND SUPPLIERS PVT LTD
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Rahul
Sinha, Ms. Muskan Rathore,
Ms. Rupal Gupta and Mr.
Shivee Pandey Sinha,
Advocates.
versus

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Ms.
Nikita Salwan, Mr. Rachit
Wadhwa and Mr. Bankim Garg,
Advocates.

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

+ OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 281/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 1851/2025
(U/O XXI Rule 41) & EX.APPL.(OS) 1852/2025 (Seeking
securing of the award by way of deposit before this Hon‟ble
court)

M/S PRADEEP COLONISERS AND SUPPLIERS PVT LTD
.....Decree Holder
Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Rahul
Sinha, Ms. Muskan Rathore,
Ms. Rupal Gupta and Mr.
Shivee Pandey Sinha,
Advocates.
versus

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD .....Judgement Debtor
Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Ms.
Nikita Salwan, Mr. Rachit
Wadhwa and Mr. Bankim Garg,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. With the consent of the parties, the present Petitions were taken
up for consideration together, as they arise from the same arbitral
award. At the outset, this Court heard the parties on a foundational
question of law which arises for determination. The resolution of this
issue has a significant bearing on the adjudication of the present
Petitions and is likely to impact them either wholly or in part.
2. These petitions arise out of the Arbitral Award dated

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 2 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

1
22.07.2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in arbitral
proceedings bearing DIAC/3753/02-22, titled “M/s. MBL
Infrastructure Limited vs. Pradeep Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt.
Ltd.”. By the Impugned Arbitral Award, the learned Arbitrator
adjudicated upon the eight issues framed for determination and, in
doing so, partly allowed Claim Nos. 1 to 3 preferred by MBL
2
Infrastructure Ltd. . Further, while upholding the maintainability of
the counter-claims filed by Pradeep Colonisers & Suppliers Pvt.
3
Ltd. , the learned Arbitrator partly allowed Counter Claim Nos. 1 and
7.
3. In the present Judgment, the principal issue that arises for
adjudication is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
counter-claims were maintainable before the learned Arbitrator, as has
been upheld in the Impugned Award.
4. It is pertinent to note that the determination of the aforesaid
issue will have a direct bearing on the further course of adjudication.
In the event this Court holds in favour of Pradeep Colonisers on the
issue of maintainability, the merits of the claims and counter-claims,
as decided by the learned Arbitrator, would then require further
consideration. Such determination would also have a consequential
impact on the execution petition instituted by Pradeep Colonisers as
well. Conversely, if the issue is decided against Pradeep Colonisers,
the same would materially affect the fate of the present petitions
arising out of the Impugned Award.


1
Impugned Arbitral Award
2
MBL Infrastructure
3
Pradeep Colonisers

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 3 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

PROLOGUE:
5. O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 has been filed by MBL
Infrastructure under Section 34 of the A&C Act, seeking the setting
aside of the Impugned Arbitral Award passed by the learned
Arbitrator. The Petitioner therein challenges the findings of the
learned Arbitral Tribunal on the ground, inter alia , that the Impugned
Award suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record and is
therefore liable to be set aside.

6. O.M.P. (COMM) 470/2025 has been filed by Pradeep
Colonisers under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) read with Section 34(2-A) of the
A&C Act, seeking partial setting aside of the Impugned Arbitral
Award. The challenge is limited to specific portions of the Award.
The Petitioner therein has, in particular, assailed the grant of Claim
No. 1 along with interest in favour of MBL Infrastructure. The
adjudication of Claim No. 2 is also challenged on the ground that the
said claim is not arbitrable. Further, the Petitioner therein contests the
rejection of certain portions of the Counterclaim. According to the
Petitioner, the Impugned Arbitral Award, to the extent it deals with
the aforesaid aspects, is vitiated by patent illegality and suffers from
jurisdictional errors.
7. The Execution Petition being O.M.P.(ENF.)(COMM) 281/2025
has been instituted by Pradeep Colonisers under Section 36 of the
A&C Act, seeking enforcement of the Impugned Arbitral Award,
whereby the learned Tribunal, after adjusting the allowed claims and
counterclaims of the parties, directed the payment of a net amount of
Rs. 5,35,76,675/- in favour of the Pradeep Colonisers along with post-
award interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, in the event of non-

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 4 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

payment within the stipulated period i.e., four months from the date of
the Award.
8. Since the above matters arise out of the same Arbitral Award
and involve overlapping factual and legal issues, they are being
considered together. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the
parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were
arrayed before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, namely, MBL
Infrastructure as the “ Claimant ” and Pradeep Colonisers as the
“ Respondent ”.
9. For the sake of clarity and to delineate the scope of the present
adjudication, the issues framed by the learned Arbitrator, as recorded
in the Impugned Award, are reproduced hereunder:

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 5 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

10. Although multiple issues were framed and adjudicated by the
learned Arbitral Tribunal, the controversy in the present proceedings
primarily centres around the findings returned on Issue No. 6.
Needless to say, the determination of this issue has a direct and
substantial bearing on certain other issues, particularly Issue No. 5
and, to an extent, Issue No. 7, as they are intrinsically connected and
impact the relief granted under the Impugned Award, especially in
favour of the Respondent.

11. Issue No. 6 pertains to the maintainability of the Respondent‟s
counterclaims in light of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
4
Process initiated against the Claimant under the Insolvency and
5
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , culminating in the approval of a resolution
plan up to the level of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Claimant, in
support of its objection before the Arbitral Tribunal, contended that
upon approval of the resolution plan, all claims against the Claimant
not forming part of the approved plan stood extinguished.
Consequently, it was urged that the Respondent‟s counterclaims could
not be pursued or adjudicated in the arbitral proceedings.
12. The learned Arbitral Tribunal, however, rejected the aforesaid
contention and held that the counterclaims of the Respondent were
maintainable, notwithstanding the approval of the resolution plan
under the CIRP.
13. During the hearing held on 10.03.2026 before this Court, while
considering the present petitions, the preliminary issue arose with
respect to the correctness of the findings returned by the learned

4
CIRP
5
IBC

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 6 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

Arbitrator on Issue No. 6. The parties were, accordingly, heard
extensively on this limited but foundational question. The present
Judgment, therefore, first proceeds to adjudicate upon the validity of
the findings of the learned Arbitrator on the said issue. As noted
hereinabove, the determination of this issue is likely to have a
substantial bearing on the outcome of these petitions, either in whole
or in part.

BRIEF FACTS:
14. For the purposes of adjudicating the limited issue that has arisen
here, the relevant and necessary factual matrix is set out hereunder:
a) The Claimant, MBL Infrastructure, was awarded a contract by
the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, for
restoration works pertaining to the Western Gandak Canal
6
System, pursuant to a parent contract dated 02.03.2015 .
b) In connection with the execution of a portion of the said works,
7
the Claimant issued a Work Order dated 23.04.2015 in favour
of the Respondent, Pradeep Colonisers, for the execution of
works relating to the restoration of certain sub-distributaries
under the project.
c) In terms of the said Work Order, the Respondent undertook
execution of specified works at the project site and periodically
8

raised Running Account Bills corresponding to the work
executed. The Respondent asserts that it had executed substantial
portions of the work and raised RA Bills from time to time,

6
Parent Contract
7
Work Order
8
RA Bills

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 7 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

whereas the Claimant made only partial payments after making
various deductions.
d) During the subsistence of the contractual relationship between
the parties, certain developments occurred in relation to the
parent contract between the Claimant and the Government of
Bihar. It is not in dispute that the parent contract came to be
foreclosed by the Water Resources Department on 26.07.2016,
and subsequently, the said contract was terminated by the
Government of Bihar on 13.01.2018. The consequences flowing
from the foreclosure and termination of the parent contract
formed part of the disputes between the parties in the arbitral
proceedings.
e) Parallelly, the Claimant company was subjected to CIRP under
the IBC. The CIRP was initiated upon an application filed by
RBL Bank Ltd. under Section 7 of the IBC before the learned
9
National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench , in
Company Petition (IB) No. 170/KB/2017. By an Order dated
30.03.2017, the learned NCLT admitted the said petition,
declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, and
appointed Mr. Atanu Mukherjee as the Interim Resolution
10
Professional to take over the management of the Claimant
company. Later, vide the Order dated 18.05.2017 passed by the
learned NCLT, the IRP was replaced by Mr. Sanjeev Ahuja as
Resolution Professional.
f) Pursuant to the commencement of CIRP, the IRP issued a public

9
NCLT
10
IRP

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 8 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

announcement inviting claims from the creditors of the Claimant.
In response thereto, the Respondent submitted its claim in Form-
B on 14.04.2017, asserting that a sum of Rs. 7,29,59,412/- was
due and payable by the Claimant towards unpaid RA Bills and
other deductions made under the Work Order dated 23.04.2015.
g) During the CIRP proceedings, the claim of the Respondent was
examined by the IRP and, according to the Respondent, the claim
was partially verified to the extent of Rs. 1,87,57,863/-, which
was reflected in the List of Creditors prepared by the IRP,
wherein the Respondent was shown as a creditor at Serial No.
440.
h) Subsequently, the Committee of Creditors approved a Resolution
Plan dated 22.11.2017 submitted by Mr. Anjani Kumar Lakhotia,
who was stated to be the promoter of the Claimant company. The
said Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT by
Order dated 18.04.2018.
i) It is a matter of record that in the approved Resolution Plan, the
claims of the Respondent did not find mention, and accordingly,
the same stood rejected.
j) The approval of the Resolution Plan was challenged by certain
creditors before the National Company Law Appellate
11
Tribunal , which, by Judgment dated 16.08.2019, upheld the
approval of the Resolution Plan and dismissed the appeals.
k) The matter thereafter travelled to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal No. 8411/2019, titled “ Bank of Baroda v.
MBL Infrastructures Ltd. & Ors .” During the pendency of the

11
NCLAT

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 9 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

said proceedings, the Respondent/ Pradeep Colonisers filed I.A.
No. 138207/2021 seeking impleadment on the ground that it was
an operational creditor of the Claimant. By Order dated
26.10.2021, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court allowed the said
impleadment application of the Respondent/ Pradeep Colonisers.
l) The Hon‟ble Supreme Court ultimately disposed of Civil Appeal
No. 8411/2019 by Judgment dated 18.01.2022, reported as
(2022) 5 SCC 661 , wherein certain observations were made
regarding the eligibility of the promoter submitting the resolution
plan. However, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined to interfere
with the Resolution Plan, having regard to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the overarching objective of
the IBC, and accordingly, the Resolution Plan stood upheld.
m) In the interregnum , certain developments took place, and
eventually, on 01.02.2022, at the instance of the Claimant/MBL
Infrastructure, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by this Court
by appointing Hon‟ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi (Retd.), former
Judge of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, as the Sole Arbitrator.
n) The arbitral proceedings thereafter commenced under the aegis
of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. Before the learned
Arbitral Tribunal, the Claimant preferred multiple claims against
the Respondent, while the Respondent, in turn, raised its
counterclaims.
o) Besides contesting the matter on merits, the Claimant raised a
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the counterclaims
filed by the Respondent. It was contended that, in view of the
CIRP initiated against the Claimant and the subsequent approval

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 10 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

of the Resolution Plan under the IBC, the counterclaims raised by
the Respondent, not having been included in the approved
Resolution Plan, stood extinguished and, therefore, could not be
pursued in arbitration.
p) In light of the aforesaid objection, the learned Arbitral Tribunal
framed Issue No. 6, concerning whether the counterclaims of the
Respondent were not maintainable pursuant to the provisions of
the IBC.

q) By the Impugned Arbitral Award dated 22.07.2025, the learned
Tribunal rejected the said objection and held that the
Respondent‟s counterclaims were maintainable notwithstanding
the finality of the CIRP proceedings. The learned Tribunal
accordingly proceeded to adjudicate the counterclaims on the
merits. Upon such adjudication, Counter-Claim No. 1, relating to
unpaid R.A. Bills, was partly allowed, and a sum of Rs.
6,52,59,317/- was awarded in favour of the Respondent, along
with further interest, to become payable upon expiry of four
months. The remaining counterclaims were rejected.
Simultaneously, the learned Arbitrator partly allowed Claim Nos.
1 to 3 in favour of the Claimant, awarding a sum of Rs.
1,16,82,642/-.
r) Aggrieved by different portions of the Impugned Award, both
parties have approached this Court by way of petitions under
Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Claimant, in O.M.P.(COMM)
469/2025 , seeks the setting aside of the Award in its entirety,
whereas the Respondent, in O.M.P.(COMM) 470/2025 , seeks
partial setting aside thereof.

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 11 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

s) The Respondent has also instituted the accompanying execution
proceedings, being O.M.P.(ENF.)(COMM) 281/2025 , seeking
enforcement of the net monetary relief granted under the
Impugned Arbitral Award.
t) In the aforesaid circumstances, the present petitions have been
placed before this Court.
u) At this stage, the central controversy pertains to the findings
returned by the learned Arbitrator, particularly with respect to the
issue of maintainability and adjudication of the counterclaims
filed by the Respondent. This issue has a direct bearing on reliefs
granted under the Impugned Award in favour of the Respondent
and, consequently, on the outcome of the present petitions as
well.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT/ MBL
INFRASTRUCTURE:

15. On behalf of the Claimant, the submissions advanced may be
summarised as follows:
I. Learned counsel for the Claimant has submitted that the
Impugned Arbitral Award is liable to be set aside under Section
34 of the A&C Act, insofar as the learned Arbitral Tribunal has
held that the counterclaims of the Respondent are maintainable
despite the completion of the CIRP under the IBC. It has been
contended that the said finding, recorded while deciding Issue
No. 6, forms the very foundation upon which the learned
Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate Issue No. 5 and grant
monetary relief to the Respondent under Counter-Claim No. 1,
as well as, in part, Issue No. 7 concerning future interest. It has,

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 12 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

therefore, been submitted that the Impugned Award is ex facie
contrary to the statutory scheme of the IBC, as well as the
binding precedents of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
II. Learned counsel has submitted that the Claimant company had
undergone the CIRP pursuant to an application filed by RBL
Bank Ltd. under Section 7 of the IBC before the learned NCLT,
which was admitted by Order dated 30.03.2017. Consequent
upon the admission of the petition, a moratorium under Section
14 of the IBC was imposed and an IRP was appointed to take
over the management of the corporate debtor.
III. It has been submitted that pursuant to the statutory public
announcement inviting claims from creditors, the Respondent
submitted its claim before the IRP in Form B dated 14.04.2017,
alleging that a sum of Rs. 7,29,59,412/- was due and payable
from the Claimant. The said claim was duly processed within
the CIRP framework and was subject to the resolution
mechanism contemplated under the IBC.
IV. Learned counsel has submitted that the Resolution Plan dated
22.11.2017 came to be approved by the Committee of Creditors
and thereafter by the learned NCLT, by order dated 18.04.2018
under Section 31(1) of the IBC. The said order attained finality
when the learned NCLAT dismissed the appeals preferred by
certain creditors by judgment dated 16.08.2019.
V. The legality of the resolution plan was thereafter considered by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8411/2019,
decided on 18.01.2022. Learned counsel has submitted that the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court ultimately declined to disturb the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 13 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

resolution plan and allowed it to continue in operation, thereby
giving finality to the resolution process undertaken under the
IBC.
VI. Learned counsel has contended that once the resolution plan
was approved by the learned Adjudicating Authority, i.e.,
NCLT, under Section 31(1) of the IBC, the statutory
consequences provided therein necessarily followed. Section
31(1) of the IBC expressly provides that an approved resolution
plan shall be binding on the corporate debtor, its employees,
members, creditors and all other stakeholders. The legislative
intent underlying the provision is that the approval of the
resolution plan results in a final and binding settlement of all
claims against the corporate debtor.
VII. It has therefore been submitted that all claims which are not
incorporated in the approved resolution plan stand extinguished
by operation of law, and no creditor, including the Respondent,
can thereafter pursue independent proceedings to enforce such
claims.
VIII. It has been urged on behalf of the Claimant that the
Respondent, if aggrieved by the exclusion of its claim from the
approved Resolution Plan, ought to have pursued the statutory
remedies available under the IBC before the appropriate fora.
IX. It has further been contended that the Respondent, however, did
not challenge the Resolution Plan either before the learned
NCLT or the learned NCLAT, as contemplated under the
statutory framework of the IBC. Instead, the Respondent merely
sought impleadment before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 14 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

proceedings arising out of Civil Appeal No. 8411/2019, without
assailing the Resolution Plan itself, on merits. Having failed to
invoke the appropriate remedies under the IBC at the relevant
stage, the Respondent cannot now be permitted to reagitate the
very same claim through arbitral proceedings.
X. It has also been submitted that although the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court permitted the impleadment of the Respondent in Civil
Appeal No. 8411/2019, no relief was granted to it in the final
judgment. It has, therefore, been contended that any claims
concerning the Respondent do not survive thereafter in any
manner whatsoever.
XI. It has been contended that permitting the Respondent to pursue
its counterclaims in arbitration would, in effect, amount to
reopening and circumventing a Resolution Plan that has
attained finality under Section 31 of the IBC, which is
impermissible in law.
XII. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned Arbitral
Tribunal has committed a manifest error in law while dealing
with Issue No. 6, particularly in paragraph no. 177 of the
Impugned Arbitral Award, where the Tribunal has held that the
principle commonly referred to as the “clean slate theory”
would not apply in the present case because the resolution
process did not result in a change of management of the
corporate debtor.
XIII. As averred by the Claimant, the reasoning adopted by the
Tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law. It has been submitted
that the operation of Section 31 of the IBC is not contingent

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 15 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

upon any change in management of the corporate debtor. The
statutory extinguishment of claims flows automatically upon
approval of the resolution plan and is not dependent upon
whether the resolution applicant is a third party or an existing
promoter.
XIV. Learned counsel has further submitted that the binding effect of
an approved resolution plan has been authoritatively explained
by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements
including in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss
12
Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. , where the Apex Court held
that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the
IBC, all claims not forming part of the resolution plan stand
extinguished and no proceedings can thereafter be initiated or
continued in respect of such claims. Particular reliance has been
placed upon paragraph nos. 65-71 and 102 of the said judgment,
which read as under:
“ 65. Bare reading of Section 31 of the I&B Code would
also make it abundantly clear that once the resolution plan
is approved by the adjudicating authority, after it is
satisfied, that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets
the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section
30, it shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its
employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other
stakeholders. Such a provision is necessitated since one of
the dominant purposes of the I&B Code is revival of the
corporate debtor and to make it a running concern.
66. The resolution plan submitted by the successful
resolution applicant is required to contain various
provisions viz. provision for payment of insolvency
resolution process costs, provision for payment of debts of
operational creditors, which shall not be less than the
amount to be paid to such creditors in the event of
liquidation of the corporate debtor under Section 53; or the

12
2021 SCC OnLine SC 313

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 16 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

amount that would have been paid to such creditors, if the
amount to be distributed under the resolution plan had been
distributed in accordance with the order of priority in sub-
section (1) of Section 53, whichever is higher. The
resolution plan is also required to provide for the payment
of debts of financial creditors, who do not vote in favour of
the resolution plan, which also shall not be less than the
amount to be paid to such creditors in accordance with sub-
section (1) of Section 53 in the event of a liquidation of the
corporate debtor. Explanation 1 to clause ( b ) of sub-section
(2) of Section 30 of the I&B Code clarifies for the removal
of doubts that a distribution in accordance with the
provisions of the said clause shall be fair and equitable to
such creditors. The resolution plan is also required to
provide for the management of the affairs of the corporate
debtor after approval of the resolution plan and also the
implementation and supervision of the resolution plan.
Clause ( e ) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the I&B Code
also casts a duty on RP to examine that the resolution plan
does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the
time being in force.
67. Perusal of Section 29 of the I&B Code read with
Regulation 36 of the Regulations would reveal that it
requires RP to prepare an information memorandum
containing various details of the corporate debtor so that the
resolution applicant submitting a plan is aware of the assets
and liabilities of the corporate debtor, including the details
about the creditors and the amounts claimed by them. It is
also required to contain the details of guarantees that have
been given in relation to the debts of the corporate debtor
by other persons. The details with regard to all material
litigation and an ongoing investigation or proceeding
initiated by the Government and statutory authorities are
also required to be contained in the information
memorandum. So also the details regarding the number of
workers and employees and liabilities of the corporate
debtor towards them are required to be contained in the
information memorandum.
68. All these details are required to be contained in the
information memorandum so that the resolution applicant is
aware as to what are the liabilities that he may have to face
and provide for a plan, which apart from satisfying a part of
such liabilities would also ensure, that the corporate debtor
is revived and made a running establishment. The
legislative intent of making the resolution plan binding on
all the stakeholders after it gets the seal of approval from
the adjudicating authority upon its satisfaction, that the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 17 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 18 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Electrosteel Steel Ltd. v. Ispat
13
Carrier Pvt. Ltd. , where the Apex Court reiterated that after
the approval of a resolution plan, claims of creditors which
were not recognized under the plan cannot be revived through
separate proceedings.
XVI. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in the said judgement has unequivocally held

13
(2025) 7 SCC 773

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 19 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

that permitting such claims to be pursued subsequently would
defeat the very object of the IBC. Particular reliance has been
placed upon paragraph nos. 71-74 of the said judgment, which
read as under:

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 20 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

aforesaid principle has also been affirmed by this Court in JSW
14
Ispat Special Products Ltd. v. Bharat Petroresources Ltd. .
This Court, upon considering the judgments of the Supreme
Court including Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) and Electrosteel
(supra) , has held that once a Resolution Plan is approved under
Section 31 of the IBC, all claims which are not forming part of

14
2025 SCC OnLine Del 6869

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 21 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

the approved Resolution Plan stand extinguished, and no person
can initiate or continue proceedings in respect of such claims in
any manner whatsoever.
XVIII. Learned counsel has submitted that if the reasoning adopted by
the learned Arbitral Tribunal is accepted, it would lead to a
situation where creditors whose claims were not included in the
resolution plan could reassert their claims repeatedly in
independent proceedings, including arbitration, thereby
reopening the entire insolvency resolution process. Such an
interpretation would defeat the objective of the IBC and render
the resolution process redundant.
XIX. It has thus been contended that the learned Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent‟s counterclaims once
the resolution plan had attained finality under Section 31 of the
IBC. The finding recorded under Issue No.6 is thus contrary to
the statutory mandate and suffers from patent illegality.
XX. Learned counsel has further submitted that once the finding on
Issue No. 6 is found to be unsustainable in law, the
consequential relief granted under Issue Nos. 5 and 7
concerning the counterclaims filed by the Respondent
necessarily falls.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/
PRADEEP COLONISERS:

16. Per contra , on behalf of the Respondent, the submissions
advanced may be summarised as follows:
I. The Respondent has assailed the Impugned Arbitral Award to a
limited extent. At the same time, the Respondent supports the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 22 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 6, whereby the learned
Tribunal held that the Respondent‟s counterclaims were
maintainable notwithstanding the CIRP proceedings initiated
and completed against the Claimant under the IBC.
II. It has been submitted that during the CIRP proceedings, the
Respondent duly lodged its claims, which were examined by
the IRP. Upon such examination, the claims were partially
verified to the extent of Rs. 1,87,57,863/-, as reflected in the
List of Creditors prepared by the IRP, wherein the Respondent
was included as a creditor at Serial No. 440. Despite such
recognition, the approved Resolution Plan did not make any
provision for, or even record, the Respondent‟s claims. It has
therefore been contended that this omission was not inadvertent,
but rather the result of a deliberate attempt on the part of the
successful resolution applicant, which, notably, was none other
than the erstwhile management of the Claimant company itself.
III. Learned counsel for the Respondent has contended that the
Claimant‟s attempt to invoke Section 31 of the IBC as a bar to
the Respondent‟s counterclaims is misconceived.
IV. Learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the
factual circumstances of the present case are materially distinct
from the cases relied upon by the Claimant concerning the so-
called “ clean slate theory ”. In the present case, the resolution
process did not involve the entry of an unrelated third-party as a
successful resolution applicant, but rather a restructuring
undertaken by the existing promoter and management of the
corporate debtor itself. Consequently, the rationale underlying

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 23 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

the clean slate doctrine, which seeks to protect a bona fide
third-party resolution applicant from past liabilities, has no
application to the facts of the present case.
V. Learned counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance upon
the reasoning adopted by the learned Arbitral Tribunal in this
regard.
VI. It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has correctly
distinguished the judgments cited by the Claimant, holding that
the principle laid down in Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) ,
Electrosteel (supra) , and other similar authorities arises in
circumstances where a third-party resolution applicant acquires
control of the corporate debtor and is entitled to operate the
company on a clean slate.
VII. To support its case, reliance has also been placed by the
Respondent upon the Judgment of the Madras High Court in
The National Sewing Thread Co Ltd v. The Superintending
15
Engineer , wherein the Court, while examining the contours of
the Clean Slate Theory, held that the doctrine cannot be invoked
mechanically in every insolvency situation. The Court in that
judgement observed that where, after the completion of the
resolution process, the same promoters or substantially the same
management continues to control the corporate debtor, the clean
slate principle cannot operate to extinguish the claims of
creditors whose claims were not disclosed during the CIRP,
particularly when the suspended Board had a duty to make a

15
W.P. No.29845 of 2022

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 24 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

complete disclosure of all liabilities. The relevant portion of
The National Sewing Thread (supra) reads as follows:
“ 49.2 In ascertaining how CST will apply vis-à-vis an
undisclosed creditor is concerned, irrespective of whether
the corporate debtor is a MSME or not, its suspended Board
has an obligation to make a complete disclosure. See
paragraph 36 above. This will now produce two
consequences:
a) If after a successful completion of a resolution process,
the same promoters or substantially the same set of
directors of the corporate debtor continue to be in the
management, then CST will not apply to forfeit the
rights of the undisclosed creditors when the suspended
Board had an opportunity to disclose all its creditors
during the resolution process. One who owes a duty to
disclose cannot take advantage of one‟s own suppression
of information.
b) If after a successful resolution process, a third party-
resolution applicant takes over the corporate debtor, then
CST will apply to extinguish the rights of the
undisclosed creditors but only against the successful
resolution applicant or its successors-in-interest, and not
against the promoters or the suspended board of directors
of the corporate debtor. It should not be forgotten that
CST is a judicial coinage to protect the third party-
successful resolution-applicant from the uncertainties of
future claims, and not invented to protect the fraud and
suppression of the suspended board of the corporate
debtor.”

VIII. On this basis, the Respondent has asserted that since the present
case does not involve a third-party resolution applicant taking
over the corporate debtor, the Claimant cannot rely upon the
clean slate doctrine to extinguish the Respondent‟s legitimate
contractual claims arising from the work executed under the
Work Order.
IX. It has been averred that in the present case, the corporate
restructuring did not result in the entry of a new external entity
assuming control of the corporate debtor. The Respondent,

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 25 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

therefore, maintains that the principle of extinguishment of
claims relied upon by the Claimant cannot be applied
mechanically in the present factual matrix.
X. The Respondent has further submitted that the Claimant had, in
fact, received payments from the Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, in respect of the works executed by the
Respondent under the project. The Respondent‟s counterclaim
under Counter Claim No.1 merely seeks recovery of the amount
legitimately due for the work performed under the Work Order.
XI. The Respondent has, therefore, asserted that the Claimant
cannot rely upon the CIRP proceedings as a shield to avoid its
contractual liabilities arising from the work executed by the
Respondent. Permitting such an interpretation would enable the
Claimant to unjustly retain payments received for the project
while denying payment to the contractor who executed the
work.
XII. The Respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8411/2019, wherein the
Court, despite observing that the resolution applicant suffered
from ineligibility under Section 29A of the IBC, declined to
disturb the approved Resolution Plan, having regard to the
peculiar facts of the case. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court took
note that the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the
requisite majority of the Committee of Creditors, had been
implemented since 18.04.2018, substantial funds had been
infused into the corporate debtor, and the company had resumed
operations as a going concern with several ongoing projects of

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 26 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

public importance, impacting thousands of shareholders and
employees. Emphasising that the primary objective of the IBC
is to revive the corporate debtor and restore it as a functional
entity, the Court declined to unsettle the Resolution Plan.
XIII. On the strength of the aforesaid decision, the Respondent has
asserted that the CIRP proceedings cannot be invoked by the
Claimant as a shield to defeat legitimate contractual claims
arising from work admittedly executed by the Respondent,
particularly when the corporate debtor continues to operate as a
going concern and has benefited from the works carried out
under the contract. The relevant portions of the Judgment in
Civil Appeal No. 8411/2019 read as follows:
“ 58. Having discussed Section 29-A( h ) of the Code as we
understood, we shall now go into the facts of the instant
case.
59. Admittedly, Respondent 3 has executed personal
guarantees which were invoked by three of the financial
creditors even prior to the application filed. The rigour of
Section 29-A( h ) of the Code obviously gets attracted. The
eligibility can never be restricted to the aforesaid three
creditors, but also to other financial creditors in view of the
import of Section 7 of the Code. In the case at hand, in
pursuance to the invocation, an application invoking
Section 7 indeed was filed by one such creditor. It was
invoked even at the time of submitting a resolution plan by
Respondent 3. Thus, in the touchstone of our interpretation
of Section 29-A( h ), we hold that the plan submitted by
Respondent 3 ought not to have been entertained.
60. The adjudicating authority and the Appellate Tribunal
were not right in rejecting the contentions of the appellant
on the ground that the earlier appeals having been
withdrawn without liberty, the issue qua eligibility cannot
be raised for the second time. Admittedly, the appellant was
not a party to the decision of the adjudicating authority on
the first occasion, in the appeal the appellant merely filed an
application for impleadment. The appellate authority did
not decide the matter on merit. In fact, the question of law
is left open. The principle governing res judicata and issue

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 27 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

concerned the adjudication of contractual disputes arising out of
the Work Order between the parties and did not in any manner
seek to reopen the CIRP proceedings or challenge the validity
of the approved resolution plan.
XV. Reliance has also been placed upon the Judgment of the
16
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in STO v. Rainbow Papers Ltd. ,
wherein the Apex Court held that the approval of a Resolution
Plan under Section 31 of the IBC is contingent upon strict
compliance with the requirements stipulated under Section
30(2) of the IBC.
XVI. The Respondent has submitted that, in the said judgment, it was
observed that the learned Adjudicating Authority/NCLT acts as
a statutory check to ensure that the Resolution Plan conforms to
the mandatory provisions of the IBC before granting approval,
and once approved, such a plan becomes binding on all
stakeholders only if it satisfies those statutory requirements.

16
(2023) 9 SCC 545

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 28 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

XVII. The Respondent has further contended that the decision of
Rainbow Papers (supra) clarifies that the binding effect
contemplated under Section 31 of the IBC is not absolute and
cannot operate in disregard of statutory or legitimate claims
which were not duly considered within the resolution
framework. For this purpose, the learned Counsel for the
Respondent has relied upon the following observation made in
the said judgment:

asserted its claims during the CIRP proceedings before the IRP,
and the same were reflected in the list of creditors. It has further
been contended that the Respondent was recognised as a
creditor in the proceedings before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
as well, wherein the impleadment application filed by the
Respondent was allowed in Civil Appeal No. 8411/2019.
XIX. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has accordingly contended
that the learned Arbitral Tribunal correctly held, while deciding
Issue No.6, that the Respondent‟s counterclaims were
maintainable and proceeded to adjudicate them on the merits.
XX. It has thus been submitted that the challenge raised by the
Claimant in O.M.P.(COMM) 469/2025 is devoid of merit, and

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 29 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

that the finding of the learned Arbitral Tribunal regarding the
maintainability of the Respondent‟s counterclaims deserves to
be upheld. At the same time, the Respondent has sought limited
interference with the Impugned Award in O.M.P.(COMM)
470/2025. The Respondent has also sought enforcement of the
Impugned Award by way of the accompanying execution
petition.

ANALYSIS:
17. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties at length and, with their able assistance, has carefully perused
the Impugned Arbitral Award and the other material placed on record.
18. At the outset, it is apposite to note that this Court remains
conscious of the limited scope of its jurisdiction while examining an
objection petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act. There is a
consistent and evolving line of precedents whereby the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court has authoritatively delineated and settled the contours
of judicial intervention in such proceedings.
19. In this regard, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court, after an exhaustive consideration of a catena of earlier
judgments, in OPG Power Generation (P) Ltd. v. Enexio Power
17
Cooling Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. , while dealing with the grounds
of conflict with the public policy of India and patent illegality,
grounds which have also been urged in the present petitions, made
certain pertinent observations, which are reproduced hereunder:


17
(2025) 2 SCC 417

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 30 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

“ Relevant legal principles governing a challenge to an arbitral
award
30. Before we delve into the issue/sub-issues culled out above, it
would be useful to have a look at the relevant legal principles
governing a challenge to an arbitral award. Recourse to a court
against an arbitral award may be made through an application for
setting aside such award in accordance with sub-sections (2), (2-A)
and (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section
34 has two clauses, ( a ) and ( b ). Clause ( a ) has five sub-clauses
which are not relevant to the issues raised before us. Insofar as
clause ( b ) is concerned, it has two sub-clauses, namely, ( i ) and ( ii ).
Sub-clause ( i ) of clause ( b ) is not relevant to the controversy in
hand. Sub-clause ( ii ) of clause ( b ) provides that if the Court finds
that the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India,
it may set aside the award.
Public policy
31. “Public policy” is a concept not statutorily defined, though it
has been used in statutes, rules, notification, etc. since long, and is
also a part of common law. Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872
uses the expression by stating that the consideration or object of an
agreement is lawful, unless, inter alia, opposed to public policy.
That is, a contract which is opposed to public policy is void.
*
37. What is clear from above is that for an award to be against
public policy of India a mere infraction of the municipal laws of
India is not enough. There must be, inter alia, infraction of
fundamental policy of Indian law including a law meant to serve
public interest or public good.
*
The 2015 Amendment in Sections 34 and 48
42. The aforementioned judicial pronouncements were all prior to
the 2015 Amendment. Notably, prior to the 2015 Amendment the
expression “in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian
law” was not used by the legislature in either Section 34(2)( b )( ii ) or
Section 48(2)( b ). The pre-amended Section 34(2)( b )( ii ) and its
Explanation read:
*
44. By the 2015 Amendment, in place of the old Explanation to
Section 34(2)( b )( ii ), Explanations 1 and 2 were added to remove
any doubt as to when an arbitral award is in conflict with the public
policy of India.
45. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that we are dealing
with a case where the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act
was filed after the 2015 Amendment, therefore the newly
substituted/added Explanations would apply [ Ssangyong Engg. &
Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI , (2019) 15 SCC 131 ].

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 31 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

46. The 2015 Amendment adds two Explanations to each of the
two sections, namely, Section 34(2)( b )( ii ) and Section 48(2)( b ), in
place of the earlier Explanation. The significance of the newly
inserted Explanation 1 in both the sections is two-fold. First, it does
away with the use of words : ( a ) “ without prejudice to the
generality of sub-clause (ii) ” in the opening part of the pre-
amended Explanation to Section 34(2)(b)(ii); and (b) “ without
prejudice to the generality of clause (b) of this section ” in the
opening part of the pre-amended Explanation to Section 48(2)( b );
secondly, it limits the expanse of public policy of India to the three
specified categories by using the words “ only if ”.
Whereas, Explanation 2 lays down the standard for adjudging
whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of
Indian law by providing that a review on merits of the dispute shall
not be done. This limits the scope of the enquiry on an application
under either Section 34(2)( b )( ii ) or Section 48(2)( b ) of the 1996
Act.
47. The 2015 Amendment by inserting sub-section (2-A) in Section
34, carves out an additional ground for annulment of an arbitral
award arising out of arbitrations other than international
commercial arbitrations. Sub-section (2-A) provides that the Court
may also set aside an award if that is vitiated by patent illegality
appearing on the face of the award. This power of the Court is,
however, circumscribed by the proviso, which states that an award
shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous
application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence.
48. Explanation 1 to Section 34(2)( b )( ii ), specifies that an arbitral
award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if :
( i ) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or
corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or
( ii ) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law;
or
( iii ) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or
justice.
49. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the making of the
award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption, or was in
violation of Section 75 or Section 81. Therefore, we shall confine
our exercise in assessing as to whether the arbitral award is in
contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law, and/or
whether it conflicts with the most basic notions of morality or
justice. Additionally, in the light of the provisions of sub-section
(2-A) of Section 34, we shall examine whether there is any patent
illegality on the face of the award.
50. Before undertaking the aforesaid exercise, it would be apposite
to consider as to how the expressions:
( a ) “in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law”;

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 32 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

( b ) “in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice”;
and
( c ) “patent illegality” have been construed.
In contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law
51. As discussed above, till the 2015 Amendment the expression
“in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law” was
not found in the 1996 Act. Yet, in Renusagar Power Co.
Ltd. v. General Electric Co. , 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644 , in the
context of enforcement of a foreign award, while construing the
phrase “contrary to the public policy”, this Court held that for a
foreign award to be contrary to public policy mere contravention of
law would not be enough rather it should be contrary to:
( a ) the fundamental policy of Indian law; and/or
( b ) the interest of India; and/or
( c ) justice or morality.
*
55. The legal position which emerges from the aforesaid discussion
is that after “the 2015 Amendments” in Section 34(2)( b )( ii ) and
Section 48(2)( b ) of the 1996 Act, the phrase “in conflict with the
public policy of India” must be accorded a restricted meaning in
terms of Explanation 1 . The expression “in contravention with the
fundamental policy of Indian law” by use of the word
“fundamental” before the phrase “policy of Indian law” makes the
expression narrower in its application than the phrase “in
contravention with the policy of Indian law”, which means mere
contravention of law is not enough to make an award vulnerable.
To bring the contravention within the fold of fundamental policy of
Indian law, the award must contravene all or any of such
fundamental principles that provide a basis for administration of
justice and enforcement of law in this country.
56. Without intending to exhaustively enumerate instances of such
contravention, by way of illustration, it could be said that:
( a ) violation of the principles of natural justice;
( b ) disregarding orders of superior courts in India or the binding
effect of the judgment of a superior court; and
( c ) violating law of India linked to public good or public interest,
are considered contravention of the fundamental policy of
Indian law.
However, while assessing whether there has been a contravention
of the fundamental policy of Indian law, the extent of judicial
scrutiny must not exceed the limit as set out in Explanation 2 to
Section 34(2)( b )( ii ).
*
Patent illegality
65. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act, which was
inserted by the 2015 Amendment, provides that an arbitral award
not arising out of international commercial arbitrations, may also

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 33 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is visited
by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. The proviso
to sub-section (2-A) states that an award shall not be set aside
merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by
reappreciation of evidence.
66. In ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. , (2003) 5 SCC 705 , while
dealing with the phrase “public policy of India” as used in Section
34, this Court took the view that the concept of public policy
connotes some matter which concerns public good and public
interest. If the award, on the face of it, patently violates statutory
provisions, it cannot be said to be in public interest. Thus, an award
could also be set aside if it is patently illegal. It was, however,
clarified that illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the
illegality is of trivial nature, it cannot be held that award is against
public policy.
67. In Associate Builders v. DDA , (2015) 3 SCC 49 , this Court
held that an award would be patently illegal, if it is contrary to:
( a ) substantive provisions of law of India;
( b ) provisions of the 1996 Act; and
( c ) terms of the contract [See also three-Judge Bench decision of
this Court in State of Chhattisgarh v. SAL Udyog (P) Ltd. ,
(2022) 2 SCC 275 ].
The Court clarified that if an award is contrary to the substantive
provisions of law of India, in effect, it is in contravention of
Section 28(1)( a ) of the 1996 Act. Similarly, violating terms of the
contract, in effect, is in contravention of Section 28(3) of the 1996
Act.
68. In Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI , (2019)
15 SCC 131 this Court specifically dealt with the 2015
Amendment which inserted sub-section (2-A) in Section 34 of the
1996 Act. It was held that “patent illegality appearing on the face
of the award” refers to such illegality as goes to the root of matter,
but which does not amount to mere erroneous application of law. It
was also clarified that what is not subsumed within “the
fundamental policy of Indian law”, namely, the contravention of a
statute not linked to “public policy” or “public interest”, cannot be
brought in by the backdoor when it comes to setting aside an award
on the ground of patent illegality [See Ssangyong Engg. &
Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI , (2019) 15 SCC 131 ]. Further, it
was observed, reappreciation of evidence is not permissible under
this category of challenge to an arbitral award [See Ssangyong
Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI , (2019) 15 SCC 131 ].
Perversity as a ground of challenge
69. Perversity as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award was
recognised in ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd. ,
(2014) 9 SCC 263 . Therein it was observed that an arbitral
decision must not be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 34 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 35 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

counterclaims preferred by the Respondent were maintainable in light
of the CIRP undergone by the Claimant under the IBC. Consequently,
the ancillary question that falls for determination is whether the
Respondent was entitled to any relief in respect of such counterclaims.
21. In the aforesaid backdrop, and bearing in mind that the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 36 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

determination of Issue No. 6 before the learned Arbitral Tribunal
constitutes the very substratum of the present controversy, it becomes
apposite for this Court to advert to the findings recorded by the
learned Arbitral Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, for the sake of
completeness, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant findings on the
said issue, which are as follows:
“ Issue No. 6: Whether the Counter Claims of the Respondent-
Counter Claimant are not maintainable as per the provisions
of IBC Code 2016?
162. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Claimant
Company was initiated by the creditor RBL Bank Limited under
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by an order of the
Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal Vide Order dated
30.03.2017 ( Ann. C-16, Pg.216-223, CV-11 ). The Financial
creditors of the Company, Mis RBL Bank Pvt. Ltd filed an
application bearing No. (IB) -170/KB/2017 under Section 7 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 before the Hon'ble National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench to initiate the
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Claimant
Company. The aforesaid application was admitted by the Hon'ble
NCLT vide its order dated 30.03.2017, whereby the Hon'ble NCLT
was pleased to impose moratorium upon the Claimant Company in
terms of Section 14 of the Code and NCLT has appointed Mr.
Atanu Mukerjee as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), to
take over the control and management of the Claimant Company.
On 30.03.2017 ( Ann.C-17, Pg.224, CV-II ), the IRP released
public announcement in Form-A bearing Reference No.
IBBI/IPAIP/ 00088/20 16-17 /1097 wherein the creditors of the
Claimant Company were called upon to submit their claims against
the Claimant Company. On behalf of the Claimant, it is contended
that the counter claims of the Respondent are not maintainable as
the Counter Claims not being part of approved Resolution Plan
under IBC, 2016. Claimant contends that it is settled law that all
claims not part of the Resolution Plan get extinguished on approval
of the Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority under Section 31
of IBC, 2016.
163. RW-1 stated that only after the public announcement released
by IRP on 30.03.2017. Respondent had come to know about the
initiation of CIRP against the Claimant Company and the
Respondent filed its claim in Form-B ( Ex.RW-1/X5 ) to the tune
ofRs.7,29,59,412/before the IRP qua the outstanding dues and
payments to be made by the Claimant. R W-1 stated that the
amount of Rs.7,29,59,412/- claimed before the IRP comprised of

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 37 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

amount claimed as per R.A. Bill No.12 Rs.6,52,59,317 /- qua the
payments due in terms of 12th RA Bill and Rs.77,00,095 /-
towards the security amount, Retention money, etc. withheld by
the Claimant Company. The Respondent filed its claim in Form-
Bon 14.04.2017 ( Ann. C-18, Pg.225-230, CV-II ) before the
Resolution Professional making a claim to the tune of
Rs.7,29,59,412/-. RW-1 stated that an email was sent by IRP/RP
requesting to submit Respondent's claim against the Claimant
Company. In response to the said email, Respondent Company
filed its claim form before IRP (Q/A 52). Claim Form filed by the
Respondent before the IRP has been shown to R W-1 during his
cross examination and that said Claim Form along with Annexures
thereon (BOQ Items of Work executed till 26.07.2016) was
marked as Ex. RW-1/ XS (Q/A 22, RW-1 ). The claim filed by the
Respondent before IRP was partially approved by the IRP to the
tune of Rs.1 ,87, 57,863 / -. It is stated that a List of creditors ( Ex.
RW-1/13, Pg.466-478, RV-III ) was prepared wherein the name of
the Respondent was included at Serial number 440 of the list of
the creditors . Annexure R-8 - Ex. RW-1/13 is the photocopy of
the List of creditors published by IRP/RP containing the List
creditors and also the List of creditors. As pointed out above, the
name of the Respondent was mentioned at Serial No. 440 in the
List of Creditors along with all the names of the creditors are
mentioned. As per Ex. RW-1 /13 - Annexure R-8, it is stated that
an amount of Rs.1, 87,57,863/- is payable by the Claimant
company to the Respondent. As per the said list, an amount of
Rs.1,87,57,863/- was stated as verified by the IRP out of the
amount claimed for Rs.7,29,59,412/-. Resolution Plan dated
22.11.2017 submitted by Mr. Anjani Kumar Lakhotia was
approved by the Committee of Creditors with 78.50% support and
the same was approved by the NCL T vide its Order dated
18.04.2018 ( Ex. CW- 1/19, Pg. 231, CV-2 ).
164. Some of the financial creditors filed appeal against the Order
dated 18.04.2018 of the NCLT before National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Vide its order dated 16.08.2019
( Ann. C-20, Pg.257-269, CV-II ) the Hon'ble NCLAT upheld the
Creditor' s approved Resolution Plan and dismissed all the appeals.
Bank of Baroda one of the dissenting financial creditors of the
Claimant Company challenged the order of the NCLAT dated
16.08.2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal
No. 8411 of 2019 titled Bank of Baroda Vs MBL Infrastructures
Ltd. & Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its interim order
dated 25.11.2019 stayed the implementation and operation of the
impugned judgment of NCLT dated 18.04.2018 and as a result of
the stay, the implementation of Resolution Plan of Mr. Anjani
Kumar Lakhotia got stayed. Before the Supreme Court, the
Respondent has filed an Application for its impleadment as a party

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 38 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

in IA No. 13 8207 /2021 in C.A. No. 8411/2019 stating that the
Respondent is the Operational Creditor and the Respondent also
has made to reject the Approved Resolution Plan dated 22.11.2017.
In the said Application, the Appellant- Bank of Baroda stated that
no objection for the impleadment of the Respondent. By the Order
dated 26.10.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the said
Impleadment Application and the Respondent was thus recognised
as an "Operational Creditor". The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
Judgment and order dated 18.01.2022 dismissed the Civil Appeal
No. 8411 of 2019 inter alia making certain observations
( Annexure C-21 ). The Interim Resolution Plan has been upheld by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
165. The Interim Resolution Professional has made the Public
announcement calling upon claims of the Creditors against the
Claimant Company ( Ann. C-17, pg.224, CV-II ). The Respondent
submitted the claim before the Insolvency Resolution Professional
on 13.04.2017 -Annexure C-18, pg.225 of CV-11. According to
the Respondent, the claim filed by the Respondent was partially
approved by the IRP to the tune of Rs. 1,87,57,863/-. Pursuant to
the submissions of the claims with the IRP a list of creditors was
published by the IRP on the IBBI website, wherein the name of the
Respondent is said to have been included at number 440 of the list
o the creditors. As per the said List of Creditors (Ex. RW- 1/13,
pg.466, RV-11), an amount ofRs.1,87,57,853/- was shown as
verified by the IRP out of the Respondent's claim amount
ofRs.7,29,59,412/-. The IRP subsequently published a List of
Creditors, wherein the Respondent's name was included at Serial
No. 440. As per the said list, as against the total claim amount of
Rs.7,29,59,412/-, a partial amount of Rs.1,87,57,863/- was
admitted by the IRP and the same is reflected in the List of
creditors published by the IRP ( Ex. RW-1/13, pg. 466, RV-III ).
Respondent states that despite the Final Resolution Plan being
approved in 2018, the Respondent has not received any payment
from the Claimant.
166. Per Contra, Claimant contends that the Insolvency Resolution
Professional had not admitted any of the claim of the Respondent;
Claimant states that advances of Rs.1,87,57,863/- were to be
recovered from the Respondent and payable to the Claimant.
Claimant contends that the IRP/RP had not admitted any claim of
the Respondent despite the Respondent having filed claim for
Rs.7,29,59,412/- before the IRP. Case of the Claimant is that the
Insolvency Resolution Professional did not admit the claim of the
Respondent and the Respondents claims were not included in the
Resolution Plan. Claimant contends that the Approved Resolution
Plan is binding on the Respondent and that in view of Section 238
of IBC, the IBC 2016 supersedes all other laws. On behalf of the
Claimant, it was submitted that the Respondent's claim being not a

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 39 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

part of the Resolution Plan, the Respondent is not entitled to the
claim made by the Respondent. It was further submitted that as per
the Resolution Plan, only admitted claims alone will be paid after
reconciliation and subject to rights and remedies available. It is
contended that the claims of Respondent being not part of the
Resolution Plan and therefore Respondent is not entitled to any of
the Counter Claims and the counter claims are barred under law
and not maintainable.
Respondent's claim before IRP Professional/ RP:-
167. From the above discussion, it is seen that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant's claim was initially partially
admitted by the IRP and reflected in the list of creditors - Serial
No. 440 of Ex.RW-1/13. However, it was subsequently removed
and not included in the Resolution Plan. According to the
Respondent, the IRP having admitted the Respondent's claim in the
creditor list and thereafter omitted to included it in the Resolution
Plan is without any justification. It is to be pointed out that Mr.
Lakhotia (CW-I - Promoter of the Claimant Company) himself
submitted the Resolution Plan for the Claimant - MBL Infra and
after discussion by the creditors, the same had been approved.
168. On behalf of the Respondent, it was submitted that since Mr.
Lakhotia - Promoter of the Claimant Company himself was the one
who submitted the Resolution Plan and " unexplained exclusion of
a previously admitted claim (Ex.RW-1/13) " is a deliberate and
mala fide suppression. Respondent alleges that such unexplained
exclusion of a previously admitted claim reflects connivance
between the IRP and Mr. Lakhotia. Mr. Lakhotia, Promoter of the
Claimant Company himself submitted the Resolution Plan and
after discussion the same had been approved by the Committee of
Creditors and also by NCL T and NCLAT. So far as the contention
of the Respondent alleging connivance between the IRP and Mr.
Lakhotia, is concerned, this Tribunal does not propose to go into
the allegation made by the Respondent, as Resolution Plan has
been approved by the Committee of Creditors and also by NCLT
and NCLAT. So far as the Appeal filed before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, though the Supreme Court has observed that Mr.
Lakhotia was not eligible to submit the Resolution Plan. Hon'ble
Supreme Court did not interfere with the Resolution Plan on the
ground that the Resolution Plan has already been implemented.
169. On behalf of the Claimant, it was contended that the
Respondents claims having been excluded from the Resolution
Plan, the Respondent is barred from making a claim against the
Claimant. The Claimant's contention that the Respondent's claim
being not a part of the approved Resolution Plan and therefore,
Respondent is not entitled to the claim amount does not merit
acceptance. As discussed earlier, as against the judgment of
NCLAT dated 16.08.2019 ( Exhibit CW-1/20, Pg. 257, CV-II)

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 40 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

Bank of Baroda preferred Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8411 of 2019. As
discussed earlier, by its judgment dated 18.01.2022 the Supreme
Court disposed of the Civil Appeal No.8411 of 2019. By a reading
of the judgment of Supreme Court, it is seen that Supreme Court
has held that the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Lakhotia was
illegal, as it was barred under Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
did not interfere with the approved Resolution Plan on the ground
that the Resolution Plan has already been implemented by all
concerned. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent, the order passed by the Supreme Court approving the
Resolution Plan is by invoking the power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India. The Claimant is therefore not right in
contending that since the Resolution Plan met the requirement of
the Code and in view of Section 31 ( 1) of IBC, 2016, the
Respondent having been excluded from the Resolution Plan, the
Respondent cannot fall back upon Ex.RW-1/13 as per which the
claim of the Respondent was initially admitted by the IRP.
Re: Claimant's contention that EX. RW-1/13 - List of
Creditors is a forged and fabricated document:-
170. The Claimant has denied the partial approval and verification
of the Respondent's claims by the IRP/RP amounting to
Rs.1,87,57,863/. Claimant contends that the said amount of
Rs.1,87,57,863/- is not payable to the Respondent; but according to
the Claimant, as per Exhibit CW-1/31 said amount is payable by
the Respondent to the Claimant. As pointed out earlier, being
aggrieved by the exclusion from the Final Resolution Plan by the
IRP, the Respondent filed IA No. 138207/2021 in Civil Appeal No.
8411/2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, seeking its
Impleadment as an Operational Creditor of the Claimant. In the CA
No. 8411/2019, filed by the Bank of Baroda, vide Order dated
26.10.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Impleading
Application filed by the Respondent and the Respondent was thus
recognised as an Operational Creditor. There is no merit in the
Claimant's contention that the List of Creditors - Ex. RW-1/13 is
forged and fabricated. It is to be pointed out that while filing the
Impleadment Application, the List of Creditors was submitted by
the Respondent before the Hon 'hie Supreme Court in 2021. If the
List of Creditors - Ex. RW-1/13 is a fabricated document as now
alleged by the Claimant, the Claimant could have very well filed
the List of Creditors prepared by the IRP before the Supreme Court
to falsify Ex. RW-1/13. But the Claimant has not filed any other
document to substantiate its contention that Ex. RW-1/13 is forged
and fabricated. Considering the entries in Ex. RW-1/13, and the
minute details thereon, the Tribunal holds that Ex. RW-1/13 is
genuine document and containing the actual List of Creditors.

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 41 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

171. RW-1 stated that he got Ex. RW-1/13 - Annexure R-8
( Pg.466-478, RV-III ) when he visited the office of the Claimant
company, and that he got Annexure R-8 from the staff of the
Claimant company (Q/A 56, RW-1) . It was suggested to RW-1 by
the Claimant that neither the Claimant nor the IRP/RP of the
Claimant Company had ever handed over the alleged Ex. RW-1/13
- Annexure R-8 as no such document ever existed. (Q/A 58, RW-
1). There is no merit in the suggestion made by the Claimant that
Annexure R-8 - Ex. RW-1/13 is a fabricated document and the
same does not merit acceptance. Annexure R-8 contains all the
minute details of all the creditors numbering 722 and the "amount
claimed by the creditors" and amount verified from books and the
names of the creditors have been arranged in an alphabetical
manner. SI. No. 440 contains the name of the Respondent "Pradeep
Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.". The amount claimed by the
Respondent before IRP/RP is stated as Rs.7,29,59,412/- and upon
verification of the Book of Accounts, amount verified from the
Claimant's books is stated as Rs.1,87,57,863/-. As discussed
earlier, the IRP verified from the available Books of Account and
found that an amount of Rs.1,87,57,863/as the amount payable to
the Respondent.
172. As pointed out above, in Annexure R-8 - Ex. RW-1/13 , the
name of the Respondent is included at Serial No. 440 in the list and
as per the list, an amount ofRs.1,87,57,863/- is due and payable to
the Respondent and the same has been verified by the IRP. Per
contra, while referring to the claim submitted by the Respondent
before the IRP, Claimant contends that the IRP had not admitted
any amount claimed by the Respondent. Claimant in the reply filed
by the Claimant to the Statement to the Counter claims the
Claimant has stated that " advances of Rs.1,87,57,863/- were to be
recovered from the Respondent/ Counter Claimant ". The
contention of the Claimant that the IRP had not admitted any
amount of the claim submitted by the Respondent is not in
accordance with the documents placed on record.
173. The Contention of the Claimant that an amount of
Rs.1,87,57,863/- was recoverable by the Claimant company from
the Respondent is not in accordance with the Headings given by
the IRP in Ex. RW-1/13 (Pg. 466-478, RV-III) . In Ex. RW-1/13 -
List of Creditors, IRP has prepared the List with the Headings: -
"Sl. No", "Name", "Amount claimed" and "Amount verified from
the Bank" ; that is the amount claimed by the Creditors from the
Debtor. In the Insolvency Proceedings under the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, list is prepared containing the List of Creditors
and the amount claimed by the Creditors from the Insolvent Debtor
and the said list is prepared before convening the Meeting of
Creditors. While so, the Claimant is not right in contending that the
amount of Rs.1,87,57,863/- as stated in SL No. 440 at pg.473 of

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 42 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

RV-III is the amount payable by the Respondent to the Claimant.
The Claimant has not submitted any documents to substantiate its
contention that the said MOUNT of Rs.1,87,57,863/- was actually
payable by the Respondent to the Claimant. As held earlier in
Claim No.7, the contention of the Claimant that an amount of
Rs.1,87,57,863/is payable by the Respondent to the Claimant is
bereft of merits and the Claimant's claim under Claim No.7 has
been rejected.
174. As pointed out earlier, the Respondent has filed IA No.
138207/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 8411/2019 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, seeking Impleadment as an Operational Creditor
of the Claimant and the said Application was allowed by the
Supreme Court and the Respondent has been recognised as the
creditor. The Respondent's case is based upon the Respondent's RA
Bills, in particular RA Bill No.12 and also based on the fact that
the Respondent's name is appearing in the List of Creditors (Ex.
RW-1/13, Pg. 466-478, RVIII). Upon verification of the Accounts
of the Claimant, it was found by the IRP that an amount
ofRs.1,87,57,863/- is payable to the Respondent. Contention of the
Claimant in the said Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court in
C.A. No. 8411/2019, Bank of Baroda was the Appellant and Bank
of Baroda did not have any objection to the impleadment of the
Applicant - Pradeep Colonisers & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Claimant
contends that the Claimant who was the Respondent in the said
appeal before the Supreme Court was not issued any Notice in the
Impleading Application. Though the Bank of Baroda - Appellant
thereon has stated "no objection" for the impleadment of the
Respondent as an Operational Creditor, the Claimant could have
very well raised objection for the impleadment of the Respondent
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But the Claimant did not raise
any objection to the Respondent's impleadment and recognising the
Respondent as an Operational Creditor. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has allowed the IA No. 138207/2021 filed by the
Respondent. From the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
26.10.2021 in the IA No. 138207/2021, it is seen that: - (i) the
Respondent's name was reflected in the List of Creditors; (ii) the
Claimant who was a party in the Appeal filed before the Supreme
Court has not raised any objection for allowing the Respondent's
impleadment Application; and that (iii) the Respondent was
impleaded as an Operational Creditor.
175. Re - Contention that the Respondent is not the part of the
Interim Resolution Plan and therefore the Counter Claims
made by the Respondent are not maintainable: - Case of the
Claimant is that the IRP/RP had not admitted any claim of the
Respondent despite the Respondent having filed claim before the
IRP/RP. As pointed out earlier, the CIRP Proceedings of the
Claimant Company was initiated on 30.03.2017 and Mr. Atanu

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 43 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

Mukherjee was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional.
The Respondent submitted Form-B before the IRP on 14.04.2017
claiming a sum of Rs.7,29,59,412/-, the amount claimed as per RA
Bill No. 12 for the works executed till 20.11.2016. By the Order
dated 18.05.2017, Hon'ble NCLT, Kolkata appointed Mr. Sanjeev
Ahuja as Resolution Professional replacing the IRP, Mr. Atanu
Mukherjee. As per the Provisions of the IBC, 2016, Mr. Sanjeev
Ahuja has taken over the management of the Claimant Company.
According to the Respondent, the IRP has partially approved the
Respondent's claim for Rs.1 ,87,57,862/-; but the name of the
Respondent was omitted in the Resolution Plan submitted before
the NCL T, Kolkata. Claimant contends that the Claims submitted
by the Respondent was not approved by the IRP. The Resolution
Plan dated 22.11.2017 submitted by Mr. Anjani Kumar Lakhotia
was approved by the NCLT by its Order dated 18.04.2018; the
claim of the Respondent was not a part of the said Resolution Plan
approved by NCLT. Case of the Claimant is that the since the
Respondent was not a part of the Resolution plan, the claims raised
by the Respondent are extinguished in terms of Section 31 (1) of
IBC. As per Section 31 (1) of the IBC, 2016, the Resolution Plan
approved by the Adjudicating Authority shall be binding on all
concerned parties.
176. Claimant contends that it is a settled law that all those claims
which are not part of the Resolution Plan stands extinguished on
approval of Resolution plan by Adjudicating Authority under
Section 31 of IBC, 2016. In this regard Claimant has relied upon
the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra and
Sons Private Limited Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
Company Limited, “2021 SCC Online SC 313” . Relevant
portion of the said judgment reads as under: -
"2. The important questions which arose for consideration
were as under: -
(i) As to whether any creditor including the Central
Government, State Government or any local authority is
bound by the Resolution Plan once it is approved by an
adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31
of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as 'I&B Code')
(ii) As to whether the amendment to Section 31 by Section
7 of Act 26 of 2019 is clarification/declaratory or
substantive in nature?
(iii) As to whether after approved of resolution plan by
Adjudicating Authority a creditor including the Central
Government, State Government or any local authority is
entitled to initiate any proceedings for recovery of any of
the dues from the Corporate Debtor, which are not a part
of the Resolution Plan approved by the adjudicating

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 44 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

authority?
Conclusion
95. In the result, we answer the questions frames as under: -
(i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the
Adjudicating Authority under subsection (1) of Section 31,
the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand
frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and
its employees, members, creditors, including the Central
Government, any State Government or any local authority,
guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of
approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority,
all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan,
shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to
initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim,
which is not part of the resolution plan;
(ii) 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the I&B Code is
clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will
be effective from the date on which I&B Code has come
into effect;
(iii) Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues
owed to the Central Government, any State Government
or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan,
shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of
such dues for the period prior to the date on which the
Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section
31 could be continued".
In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
once the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating
Authority in terms of Section 31 (1) of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code 2016, all such claims, which are not a part of
resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be
entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a
claim, which is not part of the Resolution Plan. The Supreme Court
has held that the 2019 amendment to Section 31 of IBC, 2016
clarificatory and declaratory and will be effective from the date on
which Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has come into effect. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all dues including the
statutory dues which are not a part of the Resolution Plan shall
stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for
the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority
grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued.
177. The Claimant has placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd.
v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. to contend that all
claims not forming part of the approved resolution plan would
stand extinguished. Upon consideration of the factual matrix in
Ghanshyam case, it is seen that there is a fundamental distinction

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 45 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

of facts and therefore, the ratio of those documents cannot be
applied to the present case. In the case of Ghanshyam, the Clean
Slate Theory (CST) was applied in favour of third-party Resolution
Applicants who had no prior connection with the corporate debtor
and who took over the company pursuant to a resolution plan
approved under Section 31 of the IB Code. The ratio of the above
judgment in Ghanshyam of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was clearly
intended to shield bona fide, unrelated Resolution Applicants from
the risk of undecided or undisclosed claims that could threaten the
viability of the revival plan. The said decision in Ghanshyam
Mishra is distinguishable on facts, since in the present case no third
party Resolution-Applicant is involved.
178. Respondent contends that the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private
Limited Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited,
“2021 SCC Online SC 313 ” is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Respondent contends that in the
present case, since Mr. Lakhotia himself submitted the Resolution
Plan, the approval of the Resolution plan of Mr. Anjani Kumar
Lakhotia did not result in the change in management and control of
the corporate debtor that is the chairman herein as the old
management/ promoter of the Claimant Mr. Anjani Kumar
Lakhotia has himself revived the Claimant Company. As pointed
out earlier, in the present case, the Resolution Plan was submitted
by Mr. Lakhotia himself, who is none other than the promotor of
the Claimant Company itself. The decision in the said judgment in
Ghanshyam Mishra is clearly distinguishable on facts and not
applicable to the present case.
179. The Claimant has further relied upon Electrosteel Steel
Limited (Now Mis ESL Steel Limited) V. Ispat Carrier Private
Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 829 wherein the Hon' ble Supreme
Court has once again upheld the principle that the after the
approval of the Resolution Plan, the claims of the creditors who
were not a part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished.
Case of the Claimant is that the Respondent is barred from making
any claim against the Claimant since the resolution plan has been
approved the Adjudicating Authority and put into operation since
18.04.2018. Claimant contends that in terms of Section 31 of IBC,
2016, since the Respondent is not a part of Resolution Plan, the
claims of the Respondent stands extinguished once the Resolution
Plan is approved and put into operation.
180. On behalf of the Claimant, reliance has been placed upon the
number of Impleadment Applications filed by
Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL) filed
against the Claimant in IA No. 7202/2022 in CA 8411/2019 and it
was submitted that the said Impleadment Applications were
dismissed and the Respondent is positioned on the same footing

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 46 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

and the Respondent therefore cannot make any claim against the
Claimant. The said Application filed by TCIL was dismissed as
withdrawn. As contended by the Respondent, the said Application
was not adjudicated on merits and therefore based on the said order
passed in IA No. 7202/2022, it cannot be held that the Respondent
being out of Resolution Plan is barred from pursuing its counter
claims.
181. On behalf of the Claimant, reliance was also placed upon
number of other Applications filed by TCIL before the NCLT and
also before NCLAT, against the Claimant and it was submitted that
those Applications were dismissed. On behalf of the Respondent,
Rejoinder Arguments were filed on 24.05.2025 distinguishing the
facts of the said Applications filed by TCIL with the present case.
As contended by the Respondent, the case of the Respondent
stands on different footing as the Respondent has made its claim
before the IRP and the same was partially admitted by the Interim
Resolution Plan, though the same was not included in the
Resolution Plan and consequently Respondent's claim was not
shown as the Creditor in the Approved Resolution Plan. The case
in hand stands on different footing interalia for the reasons: - (i) the
Respondent's claim before the IRP was partially admitted and the
Respondent' s name was shown as creditor at SI. No. 440 in the
List of Creditors in Ex.RW- 1/ 13 ; but the same was not included
in the Resolution Plan; (ii) Impleadment Application filed by the
Respondent in the Supreme Court in IA No.13 8207 /2021 in Civil
Appeal No.8411 /2 019 was allowed by the Supreme Court and
that the Respondent has been recognized as the Creditor by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
182. As pointed out above, the Respondent' s claim has been
initially admitted by IRP and reflected in the list of Creditors at
serial no.440 (Ex.RW-1/13). Though the Respondent' s claim was
subsequently not included in the Resolution Plan, as discussed
supra and infra the impleadment Application filed by the
Respondent in IA No.138207 / 2021 before the Supreme Court in
C.A. No.8411 of 2019 has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Meaning thereby that the Respondent has been recognized
as the Creditor. On behalf of the Claimant, it was contended that
the Claimant was never issued any notice in the said impleadment
application and on the first date of listing of the said application,
Bank of Baroda had made statement stating no objection for
impleadment. It was in that context that while disposing of Civil
Appeal No.8411 /2019 the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the
Impleadment Application filed by the Respondent by the Order
dated 18.01.2022. The Tribunal is of the view that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by allowing of the Impleadment Application filed
by the Respondent in IA No.13 8207 /2021, the Respondent has
been recognized as the Creditor. It is held that though the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 47 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

claim of the Respondent has been excluded from the Resolution
Plan, considering the fact that the name of the Respondent has
been shown as creditor in Ex.RW-1/13 - List of Creditors and
SI. No. 440 and in view of the order of the Supreme Court
allowing Respondent's Impleadment Application, it is held the
Respondent is entitled to pursue its Counter Claims against the
Claimant .
183. Further, as discussed earlier, some of the Financial Creditors
to the Claimant Company, has filed an Appeal before NCLAT. The
Hon'ble NCLAT by its Order dated 16.08.2019 has dismissed the
appeal and upheld the Resolution Plan of the Claimant Company.
In the appeal filed by the Bank of Baroda in C.A 8411 of 2019, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Resolution Plan
submitted by Mr. Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia (Respondent No. 3 in
the Appeal filed before the Supreme Court) being ineligible and
that the same is not maintainable. However, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court did not choose to interfere with the Resolution Plan and
order of the approval of the Resolution Plan by observing that the
Resolution Plan has been put into operation since 18.04.2018 and
that MBL Infrastructure is an ongoing concern. Relevant paras
(Paras 62 to 65 of the said judgment) of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said appeal - Bank of Baroda v. MEL
Infrastructures Ltd., (2022) 5 SCC 661: 2022 SCC Online SC 48
reads as under: -
62. Having held so, we would like to come to the last part
of our order. Though the very resolution plan submitted
by Respondent 3, being ineligible is not maintainable,
much water has flown under the bridge. The requisite
percentage of voting share has been achieved. We may
also note that the percentage has been brought down
from 75% to 66% by way of an amendment to Section
30(4) of the Code.
63. Secondly, majority of the creditors have given their
approval to the resolution plan. The adjudicating authority
has rightly noted that it was accordingly approved after
taking into consideration, the techno-economic report
pertaining to the viability and feasibility of the plan. The
plan is also put into operation since 18-4-2018, and as of
now Respondent 1 is an on-going concern. Though,
Respondent 11 has taken up the plea that its offer was
conditional, it has got a very minor share which may not
be sufficient to impact by adding it with that of the
appellant and Respondent 7. Respondent 7 and
Respondent 11 did not choose to challenge the order of the
Appellate Tribunal.
64. We need to take note of the interest of over 23,000
shareholders and thousands of employees of Respondent

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 48 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

1. Now, about Rs 300 crores has also been approved by
the shareholders to be raised by Respondent 1. It is stated
that about Rs 63 crores has been infused into Respondent
1 to make it functional. There are many on-going projects
of public importance undertaken by Respondent 1 in the
nature of construction activities which are at different
stages.
65. We remind ourselves of the ultimate object of the
Code, which is to put the corporate debtor back on the
rails. Incidentally, we also note that no prejudice would be
caused to the dissenting creditors as their interests would
otherwise be secured by the resolution plan itself, which
permits them to get back the liquidation value of their
respective credit limits. Thus, on the peculiar facts of the
present case, we do not wish to disturb the resolution plan
leading to the on-going operation of Respondent 1.
(Emphasis added)
By a reading of the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, it is
seen that the Supreme Court did not disturb/ interfere in the
Resolution Plan of the Claimant Company ( despite Mr. Lakhotia
being found to be ineligible) has been upheld by the Supreme
Court keeping in view the interest of the 23,000 shareholders (of
the Claimant - MBL), and thousands of employees of MBL and
that the objective of the IBC to put the Corporate Debtor back on
its rails. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment held that
though the Respondent No.3 thereon - Mr. Anjani Kumar is
ineligible to submit the plan, the Supreme Court did not disturb the
Resolution Plan as the same has been put into implementation from
18.04.2018, and that about Rs.63 crores has been infused to MBL
Infrastructure and in such peculiar facts of the case. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court did not interfere with the Resolution Plan. Thus, in
the peculiar facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that it does
not wish to disturb the Resolution Plan leading to the ongoing
operation of the MBL on the ground that the Resolution plan has
been put into operation 18.04.2018.
184. Claimant MBL is an ongoing concern :- The Claimant
Company has gone through a successful Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Proceedings and the Resolution Plan of the Claimant
Company has also been put into Operation. The Claimant
Company - MBL Infrastructures being a public Company is still
listed in the BSE and NSE and the Claimant Company is now an
ongoing concern. The objective of the IBC, 2016 is to put the
Corporate Debtor back on the rails and the Claimant company
having gone through a successful CIRP has been given a fresh and
clean slate upon approval of the Resolution Plan by the
Adjudicating. The Claimant has contended that the Resolution Plan
has been approved and the same excludes the Respondent's name

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 49 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

and therefore the Respondent's claim stands extinguished. As
discussed earlier the Contract has been foreclosed on 26.07.2016
and the CIRP of the Claimant Company has been initiated on 30.03
.2017. The Respondent has submitted its claim before the IRP on
the basis of RA Bill No. 12 and the name of the Respondent was
included in the List of creditors prepared by the IRP. Subsequently,
the IRP Mr. Atanu Mukherjee has been replaced by the Committee
of Creditors. By the Order of NCLT, Mr. Sanjeev Ahuja was
appointed as a Resolution Professional on 18.07.2017. The
Claimant has officially terminated the Respondent's Contract only
on 16.09.2017. The Final Resolution Plan has been submitted on
22.11.2017 and the same has been approved by NCL T on
18.04.2018 and the same has been put into operation. It is to be
pointed out that the Bihar Government has terminated the Parent
Contract only on 13.01.2018. The Claimant has officially
terminated the Contract with the Respondent while undergoing the
CIRP Proceedings and the Parent Contract has been terminated
only after the submission of the Resolution Plan. While so, the
Claim of the Respondent cannot be brushed aside by stating that
the Claim of the Respondent relates to the period prior to the
approval of the Resolution process.
185. Though Respondent did not challenge Resolution Plan,
Respondent filed an Impleadment Application in Civil Appeal
No.8411 of 2019 shows the intention of the Respondent to claim
payment for the works that the Respondent has executed in terms
of the Work Order dated 23.04.2015. Moreover, in the
Impleadment Application the Respondent was recognised as an
'Operational Creditor' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated
26.10.2021. The Parent Contract has been terminated on
13.01.2018 after the submission of the Resolution Plan and
therefore the Counter Claims raised by the Respondent are very
well maintainable. The Claimant has also not produced any
documents to substantiate its contention that Rs.1 ,87,57,863/- was
actually payable by the Respondent to the Claimant. The
Claimant's contention that the Respondent's claim being not a part
of the approved Resolution Plan and therefore, Respondent is not
entitled to the claim amount does not merit acceptance. For the
works executed by Respondent, in terms Work Order dated
23.04.2015, the Claimant has received payment from WRD. The
Claimant having received the amount from WRD, Government of
Bihar for the works executed by the Respondent, the Claimant is
bound to pay the amount to the Respondent who has executed the
work. It is therefore held that the Counter Claims made by the
Respondent in the Present Arbitration Proceedings are
maintainable. The Respondent is entitled to raise its claim for the
work executed by the Respondent.

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 50 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

186. Conclusion on Issue No. 6: - The Respondent’s claim has
been initially admitted by IRP and reflected in the list of
Creditors at serial no.440 (Ex.RW-1/13); but the same was not
included subsequently. Though the Respondent's claim was not
subsequently included in the Resolution Plan, the Tribunal is
of the view that the allowing of the lmpleadment Application
filed by the Respondent in IA No.138207/2021, the Respondent
has been recognized as the Creditor. As per the Judgment of
the Supreme Court, though Mr. Anjani Kumar Lakhotia was
not eligible to submit the Resolution Plan, the Supreme Court
did not interfere with the judgement of NCLT and NCLAT
and keeping in view the interest of the Shareholders and the
Employees and that the Resolution Plan has been put to
implementation from 18.04.2018. The Supreme Court did not
interfere with the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Anjani
Kumar Lakhotia which has been approved by NCLT and
NCLAT. Having regard to the above facts and keeping in view
that the Claimant company is an ongoing concern, it is held
that though the claim of the Respondent was not included in
the Resolution Plan, in view of the order of the Supreme Court
allowing Respondent's Impleadment Application, the
Respondent being recognised as Creditor, it is held that the
Respondent is entitled to pursue its Counter Claims against the
Claimant. The Respondent is entitled to its claim for the work
executed by the Respondent. Further, the works executed by
Respondent, in terms Work Order dated 23.04.2015, the
Claimant has received payment from WRD. The Claimant
having received the amount from WRD, Government of Bihar
for the works executed by the Respondent, the Claimant is
bound to pay the amount to the Respondent who has executed
the work. It is therefore held that the Counter Claims made by
the Respondent in the Present Arbitration Proceedings are
maintainable. ”


22. From a perusal of the above extracted portion of the Impugned
Award, it is evident that the entire contemplation and underlying
reasoning, on the basis of which the learned Arbitrator held that the
counterclaims are maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, essentially rests on the following grounds:
(a) Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the Claimant, and
the Respondent duly filed its claim before the IRP in
accordance with the provisions of the IBC.

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 51 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

(b) Upon verification, the IRP partially admitted the Respondent‟s
claim to the extent of approximately Rs. 1.87 crore and included
the same in the official List of Creditors, thereby recognising
the Respondent as a creditor.
(c) However, despite such admission, the Respondent‟s claim was
subsequently not included in the final Resolution Plan approved
under the IBC framework.
(d) The Claimant contended that in terms of Section 31 of the IBC,
any claim not forming part of the approved Resolution Plan
stands extinguished and cannot be pursued further.
(e) The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the record, found
the List of Creditors to be genuine and reliable, clearly
establishing that the Respondent was a recognised creditor with
an admitted claim.
(f) It was further noted that the Respondent was impleaded before
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and recognised as an Operational
Creditor, thereby reinforcing its legal status and entitlement.
(g) The learned Tribunal distinguished the applicability of the
“ clean slate ” principle, holding the same to be inapplicable in
the present case, particularly as the Resolution Plan had been
submitted by the promoter himself and there was no effective
change in management or control.
(h) The learned Tribunal also took note of the fact that the Claimant
had already received payment for the work executed by the
Respondent and, therefore, could not unjustly deny payment to
the Respondent for the same.
(i) The exclusion of the Respondent‟s admitted claim from the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 52 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

Resolution Plan was held to be unjustified and unsupported by
the material on record.
(j) In view of the aforesaid factors, it was concluded that the
Respondent‟s claim does not stand extinguished merely on
account of its exclusion from the Resolution Plan, and
consequently, the counterclaims raised by the Respondent are
maintainable.
23. Now, this Court proceeds to examine the legality and
sustainability of the aforesaid line of reasoning as adopted by the
learned Arbitrator. For this purpose, it is necessary to notice certain
undisputed facts emerging from the record.
24. It is an admitted position that the Respondent had submitted its
claim before the IRP during the CIRP initiated against the Claimant
under the IBC, and the said claim was consciously pursued within the
statutory framework governing insolvency proceedings. Thereafter,
the CIRP progressed in accordance with law and culminated in the
formulation of a Resolution Plan, which was duly approved by the
Committee of Creditors and subsequently placed before the learned
Adjudicating Authority/NCLT for its approval.
25. It is an undisputed position that the Resolution Plan submitted
in respect of the Claimant-Corporate Debtor came to be approved by
the learned Adjudicating Authority on 18.04.2018. The approval of
the Resolution Plan marked the statutory culmination of the CIRP, and
the Plan consequently attained binding force in accordance with the
scheme envisaged under the IBC. It is further evident from the record
that the Respondent was fully aware of the CIRP proceedings and had,
in fact, participated therein by lodging its claim before the Resolution

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 53 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

Professional. Despite such participation, the Respondent did not avail
itself of the remedies provided under the IBC framework to challenge
the alleged non-inclusion or inadequate treatment of its claims in the
Resolution Plan before the competent fora.
26. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Respondent, in the present
proceedings, seeks to sustain its counterclaims even after the approval
of the Resolution Plan. This approach has been assailed by the
Claimant on the ground that, upon approval of the Resolution Plan by
the learned Adjudicating Authority, the rights and liabilities of all
stakeholders stand conclusively determined and crystallised within the
contours of the Plan. It is, therefore, the contention of the Claimant
that the learned Tribunal fell in error in permitting the Respondent to
pursue counterclaims which, according to the Claimant, stood
extinguished upon such approval.
27. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it becomes
necessary to advert to the statutory framework embodied in Section 31
of the IBC, which accords binding force and finality to a Resolution
Plan once it is approved by the learned Adjudicating Authority.
Section 31(1) of the IBC stipulates that upon satisfaction that the
Resolution Plan, as approved by the Committee of Creditors, complies
with the requirements set out in the other provisions of the IBC, the
learned Adjudicating Authority shall approve the Plan. Upon such
approval, the Resolution Plan becomes binding on the corporate
debtor and all stakeholders, including creditors, governmental
authorities, guarantors, and other concerned parties. For the sake of
completeness, the relevant provision is reproduced herein below:
31. Approval of resolution plan - (1) If the Adjudicating
Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 54 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

IBC is, therefore, unambiguous. Once the Resolution Plan is
approved, it attains finality and becomes binding on all stakeholders
without exception. The legislative intent underlying the IBC
framework is that all claims pertaining to the period prior to the
approval of the Resolution Plan must be submitted, verified, and

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 55 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

resolved within the CIRP itself. Any claim not forming part of the
approved Resolution Plan is, by necessary implication, extinguished.
Permitting the revival or independent adjudication of such claims
dehors the Resolution Plan would not only defeat the finality attached
to the insolvency resolution process but also run contrary to the core
objective of the IBC, which is to provide a clean slate to the
successful resolution applicant and ensure certainty in commercial
affairs.

29. In this backdrop, it is also apposite to note that the legal
position regarding the effect of approval of a Resolution Plan under
Section 31 of the IBC is no longer res integra . Judicial
pronouncements have consistently held that upon approval of a
Resolution Plan, all prior claims stand extinguished and no person is
entitled to initiate or continue proceedings in respect of claims that are
not incorporated in the Plan. The binding nature of the Resolution
Plan, coupled with the extinguishment of undecided claims, forms the
bedrock of the insolvency regime and ensures that the resolution
process achieves finality and conclusiveness.
30. Recently, in JSW Ispat (supra) , the Co-Ordinate Bench of this
Court, while relying upon numerous judgments of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, observed that once a Resolution Plan is approved by
the learned Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the IBC,
the claims incorporated in the Resolution Plan stand frozen and
become binding on the corporate debtor and all stakeholders. It was
further observed that any claim not forming part of the approved
Resolution Plan stands extinguished and no person would thereafter
be entitled to initiate or continue proceedings in respect of such

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 56 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

claims. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 57 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

scheme of the I&B Code therefore is, to make an attempt,
by divesting the erstwhile management of its powers and
vesting it in a professional agency to continue the business
of the corporate debtor as a going concern until a
resolution plan is drawn up. Once the resolution plan is
approved, the management is handed over under the plan
to the successful applicant so that the corporate debtor is
able to pay back its debts and get back on its feet.
xxxxxxxxx
65. Bare reading of Section 31 of the I&B Code would
also make it abundantly clear that once the resolution
plan is approved by the adjudicating authority, after it is
satisfied, that the resolution plan as approved by CoC
meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of
Section 30, it shall be binding on the corporate debtor and
its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other
stakeholders. Such a provision is necessitated since one of
the dominant purposes of the I&B Code is revival of the
corporate debtor and to make it a running concern.
66. The resolution plan submitted by the successful
resolution applicant is required to contain various
provisions viz. provision for payment of insolvency
resolution process costs, provision for payment of debts of
operational creditors, which shall not be less than the
amount to be paid to such creditors in the event of
liquidation of the corporate debtor under Section 53; or
the amount that would have been paid to such creditors, if
the amount to be distributed under the resolution plan had
been distributed in accordance with the order of priority
in sub-section (I) of Section 53, whichever is higher. The
resolution plan is also required to provide for the payment
of debts of financial creditors, who do not vote in favour
of the resolution plan, which also shall not be less than the
amount to be paid to such creditors in accordance with
sub-section (I) of Section 53 in the event of a liquidation of
the corporate debtor. Explanation I to clause (b) of sub-
section (2) of Section 30 of the I&B Code clarifies for the
removal of doubts that a distribution in accordance with
the provisions of the said clause shall be fair and
equitable to such creditors. The resolution plan is also
required to provide for the management of the affairs of
the corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan
and also the implementation and supervision of the
resolution plan. Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 30
of the I&B Code also casts a duty on RP to examine that
the resolution plan does not contravene any of the
provisions of the law for the time being in force.

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 58 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 59 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 60 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 61 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 62 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceeding in
respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan.
The Bench declared that all dues including statutory dues
owed to the Central Government, any State Government
or any local authority if not part of the resolution plan
shall stand extinguished and no proceeding in respect of
such dues for the period prior to the date on which the
Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under section
31 could be continued. Paragraph 102 of the aforesaid
decision reads thus
*
31. In Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., a two-judge Bench of
this court referred to the decision in Ghanashyam Mishra
and thereafter declared that on the date on which the
resolution plan was approved by the National Company
Law Tribunal, all claims stood frozen and no claim, which
is not a part of the resolution plan, would survive.
xxxxxxxxx
33. In a recent decision, a two-judge Bench of this court
decided a contempt application in JSW Steel Ltd. v.
Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal . Contention of the
petitioner was that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed
the judgment of this court in Ghanashyam Mishra by
issuing demand notices pertaining to the period covered
by the corporate insolvency resolution process. In the
above context, the Bench reiterated what was held in
Ghanashyam Mishra which has been followed in
subsequent decisions and thereafter declared that all
claims which are not part of the resolution plan shall
stand extinguished. No person will be entitled to initiate or
continue any proceeding in respect to a claim which is not
part of the resolution plan. Though the Bench did not take
any action for contempt in view of the unconditional
apology made by the respondents nonetheless the Bench
reiterated the proposition laid down in Ghanashyam
Mishra clarifying that even if any stakeholder is not a
party to the proceedings before the National Company
Law Tribunal and if such stakeholder does not raise its
claim before the interim resolution professional/resolution
professional, the resolution plan as approved by the
National Company Law Tribunal would still be binding on
him.
xxxxxxxxx
50. In so far the second and third issues are concerned, it
is by now well settled that once a resolution plan is duly
approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section
(I) of section 31, all claims which are not part of the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 63 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no person
will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceeding in
respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan.
In fact, this court in Committee of Creditors of Essar
Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta , (2020) 219
Comp Cas 97 (SC) ; had categorically declared that a
successful resolution applicant cannot be faced with
undecided claims after the resolution plan is accepted.
Otherwise, this would amount to a hydra head popping up
which would throw into uncertainty the amount payable
by the resolution applicant. In so far the resolution plan is
concerned, the resolution professional, the committee of
creditors and the Adjudicating Authority noted about the
claim lodged by the respondent in the arbitration
proceeding. However, the respondent was not included in
the top 30 operational creditors whose claims were settled
at nil. This can only mean that the three authorities
conducting the corporate insolvency resolution process
did not deem it appropriate to include the respondent in
the top 30 operational creditors. If the claims of the top 30
operational creditors were settled at nil, it goes without
saying that the claim of the respondent could not be
placed higher than the said top 30 operational creditors.
Moreover, the resolution plan itself provides that all
claims covered by any suit, cause of action, arbitration,
etc., shall be settled at nil. Therefore, it is crystal clear
that in so far claim of the respondent is concerned, the
same would be treated as nil at par with the claims of the
top 30 operational creditors.
50.1. Lifting of the moratorium does not mean that the
claim of the respondent would stand revived
notwithstanding approval of the resolution plan by the
Adjudicating Authority. The moratorium is intended to
ensure that no further demands are raised or adjudicated
upon during the corporate insolvency resolution process
so that the process can be proceeded with and concluded
without further complications. The view taken by the High
Court cannot be accepted in the light of the clear cut
provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as well
as the law laid down by this court. In view of the
resolution plan, as approved, the claim of the respondent
stood extinguished. Therefore, the Facilitation Council did
not have the jurisdiction to arbitrate on the said claim.
Since the award was passed without jurisdiction, the same
could be assailed in a proceeding under section 47 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The view taken by the High
Court that because the appellant did not challenge the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 64 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 65 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

unasserted, known or unknown, present or future etc., would be
written off in full and deemed to be permanently extinguished by
virtue of order of NCLT approving the Resolution Plan with a
special emphasis that the Consortium or Company, will not be held
responsible or liable, at any point of time, directly or indirectly.”
(emphasis supplied)

31. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the
Respondent participated in the CIRP by submitting its claim before
the Interim Resolution Professional. Having consciously elected to
pursue its claim within the insolvency framework, the Respondent
subjected itself to the statutory process and the ultimate outcome
thereof, including the manner in which its claim was dealt with under
the Resolution Plan. Once the CIRP culminated in the approval of the
Resolution Plan, the Respondent became bound by its terms. It is,
therefore, impermissible for the Respondent to subsequently re-agitate
the very same claim in collateral proceedings under the guise of
arbitral counterclaims. The record further demonstrates that although
the Respondent initially participated in the CIRP and its claim was
reflected in the list of creditors, the same did not find a place in the
final Resolution Plan. Despite this, the Respondent failed to avail
itself of the remedies provided under the IBC to challenge either the
non-inclusion or the alleged inadequate treatment of its claim before
the competent fora.
32. In continuation thereof, it is necessary to examine the statutory
framework under the IBC, which provides a comprehensive
mechanism for adjudication and appeal in matters arising out of the
insolvency resolution process. Chapter VI of Part II of the IBC, titled
“ Adjudicating Authority for Corporate Persons ”, clearly delineates
the forums competent to determine disputes relating to insolvency

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 66 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

proceedings and prescribes the appellate hierarchy. The legislative
scheme envisages a complete and self-contained adjudicatory
structure, with the learned NCLT as the adjudicating authority and the
learned NCLAT as the appellate forum.
33. Section 60 of the IBC expressly designates the learned NCLT
as the adjudicating authority in relation to insolvency resolution and
liquidation of corporate persons. Section 60(5) of the IBC further
confers wide and residuary jurisdiction upon the learned NCLT to
entertain and dispose of any application or proceeding by or against
the corporate debtor, as well as any question of law or fact arising out
of or in relation to the insolvency resolution process. The provision,
by employing a non obstante clause, overrides other laws and vests
the learned NCLT with expansive authority to adjudicate all matters
connected with the CIRP, including claims and disputes pertaining
thereto. For ready reference, the relevant portion of Section 60 of the
IBC is reproduced hereunder:
“ 60. Adjudicating authority for corporate persons. –

*
(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
other law for the time being in force, the National Company Law
Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of—
(a) any application or proceeding by or against the corporate
debtor or corporate person;
(b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or
corporate person, including claims by or against any of its
subsidiaries situated in India; and
(c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts,
arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or
liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate
person under this Code.”
(emphasis supplied)

34. The IBC further provides a structured appellate remedy under
Section 61 of the IBC, enabling any person aggrieved by an order of

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 67 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

the learned Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, particularly an order
approving a Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC, to prefer an
appeal before the learned NCLAT. Such an appeal may be instituted
on specific statutory grounds, including contravention of law, material
irregularity in the conduct of the CIRP, improper treatment of
operational creditors, or non-compliance with the requirements
prescribed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. Thus,
the statute ensures that any grievance relating to the resolution process
is capable of being effectively addressed within the appellate
framework itself. Section 61 of the IBC reads as follows:
“ 61. Appeals and Appellate Authority . - (1) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act, 2013,
any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority
under this Part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal .
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty
days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:
Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may
allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of
thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not
filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.
(3) An appeal against an order approving a resolution plan under
section 31 may be filed on the following grounds, namely: -
(i) the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the
provisions of any law for the time being in force;
(ii) there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers
by the resolution professional during the corporate
insolvency resolution period;
(iii) the debts owed to operational creditors of the corporate
debtor have not been provided for in the resolution plan in
the manner specified by the Board;
(iv) the insolvency resolution process costs have not been
provided for repayment in priority to all other debts; or
(v) the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria
specified by the Board.
(4) An appeal against a liquidation order passed under section 33
may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud
committed in relation to such a liquidation order.”
(emphasis supplied)


O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 68 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

35. The legislative architecture of the IBC, therefore, unequivocally
manifests that all grievances pertaining to the CIRP, including
objections to the contents or approval of a Resolution Plan, must be
ventilated strictly within the statutory framework of the Code. Section
60(5) of the IBC confers the widest amplitude of jurisdiction upon the
learned NCLT to examine both factual and legal issues arising from
the CIRP, while Section 61 of the IBC provides a robust appellate
mechanism before the learned NCLAT. The IBC thus constitutes a
complete code, providing for adjudication as well as appellate scrutiny
of all issues arising from insolvency proceedings, to the exclusion of
parallel or collateral remedies.
36. Here, it is undisputed that the Respondent actively participated
in the CIRP by filing its claim before the Interim Resolution
Professional. Having invoked the statutory process and submitted its
claim for determination, the Respondent was bound by the outcome of
the CIRP. If aggrieved by the exclusion of its claim from the
Resolution Plan or by the manner of its treatment therein, the
Respondent‟s remedy lay in challenging the Resolution Plan before
the learned NCLT or in preferring an appeal before the learned
NCLAT under Section 61 of the IBC. The statutory scheme leaves no
manner of doubt that any such grievance was required to be raised
exclusively in the manner prescribed under the IBC.
37. However, the record reveals that the Respondent failed to
invoke the remedies available under the IBC. It neither challenged the
Resolution Plan before the learned NCLT nor preferred an appeal
before the learned NCLAT, questioning the legality of the plan or the
treatment accorded to its claim. Instead, at a belated stage, the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 69 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

Respondent sought participation through impleadment before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in proceedings initiated by another creditor in
Civil Appeal No. 8411/2019, titled “ Bank of Baroda v. MBL
Infrastructures Ltd. & Ors ” .
38. It is pertinent to note that the statutory framework of the IBC
provides for a further appellate remedy against an order passed by the
learned NCLAT by way of an appeal to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
under Section 62 of the IBC. However, the scope of such an appeal is
deliberately and significantly circumscribed. Unlike the jurisdiction
exercised by the learned NCLT and the learned NCLAT, which
extends to both factual and legal determinations, an appeal under
Section 62 to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is confined strictly to
“ questions of law ” arising from the order of the learned NCLAT.
Section 62 of the IBC reads as follows:
“ 62. Appeal to Supreme Court. - (1) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may file an
appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law arising out of
such order under this Code within forty-five days from the date of
receipt of such order.
(2) The Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that a person was
prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal within forty-
five days, allow the appeal to be filed within a further period not
exceeding fifteen days.”

39. This statutory limitation clearly indicates the legislative intent
to restrict the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s role to examining substantial
legal issues, rather than permitting a reappreciation of evidence or
reconsideration of factual findings. Consequently, the jurisdiction of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Section 62 of the IBC is markedly
narrower in comparison to that of the learned NCLT and learned
NCLAT, both of which are vested with comprehensive authority to

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 70 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

examine and adjudicate upon factual as well as legal aspects of
disputes arising during the corporate insolvency resolution process.
40. In the present case, despite having an alleged grievance in
relation to the resolution process, the Respondent failed to avail itself
of the statutory remedies at the appropriate stages before the learned
NCLT or the learned NCLAT. Instead of challenging the Resolution
Plan or the treatment of its claim within the framework expressly
provided under the IBC, the Respondent sought to approach the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court directly. Even assuming that such an
approach was entertained, the limited jurisdiction under Section 62 of
the IBC necessarily constrained the scope of scrutiny before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court to substantial questions of law alone. As a
result, the Respondent could not have sought, nor could the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court have undertaken under the IBC, a comprehensive
reappraisal of the underlying factual matrix, including the merits,
quantum, or treatment of the Respondent‟s claim within the CIRP.
41. It is further evident from the record that although the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court did consider the issues raised in the proceedings,
particularly in the context of objections advanced by another creditor
concerning the judicial interpretation of Section 29A(h) of the IBC, it
ultimately declined to interfere with the approved Resolution Plan.
The mere fact that certain issues were examined at the level of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the absence of any modification, setting
aside, or substantive interference with the Resolution Plan, does not
enure to the benefit of the Respondent. Participation in such
proceedings, or impleadment therein, cannot be construed as
recognition, validation, or revival of the Respondent‟s claims. On the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 71 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

contrary, the refusal of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court to interfere
unequivocally reinforces the finality and binding nature of the
Resolution Plan. In such circumstances, no surviving cause remains
for the Respondent to agitate its claims in collateral proceedings
outside the statutory framework of the IBC.
42. It is a matter of record that the Respondent did, in fact,
approach the Hon‟ble Supreme Court; however, no substantive relief
was granted in its favour. In such circumstances, if the Respondent
remained aggrieved by the non-grant of relief, it was incumbent upon
it to pursue appropriate remedies before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
itself, in accordance with law. This would have included seeking
review, recall, clarification, or modification of the order, as
permissible within the procedural framework governing the Apex
Court‟s jurisdiction. The Respondent, however, failed to avail any
such remedy. This omission is of considerable legal significance.
43. Once the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, upon due consideration, did
not grant any relief, and the Respondent failed to avail itself of any
further legally permissible remedies, such as review, recall, or
clarification, the matter attained finality in the eyes of law. In such
circumstances, no part of the Respondent‟s claim, irrespective of its
perceived legitimacy, can be said to have survived or remained open
for subsequent adjudication. The legal consequence of such finality is
that the Respondent is precluded from seeking to revive or enforce the
very same claims in collateral proceedings, including arbitral
proceedings. To permit such an exercise would amount to
circumventing the binding effect of the adjudicatory process and
undermining the conclusiveness attached to the outcome. The absence

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 72 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

of any affirmative relief in favour of the Respondent, when read
together with its failure to pursue further remedies within the
prescribed legal framework, leads to the inevitable conclusion that no
enforceable or subsisting claim remains thereafter.
44. With utmost respect to the learned Arbitrator, this Court is
unable to concur with the view that the mere inclusion of the
Respondent in the list of creditors during the CIRP, or its
impleadment as a creditor in proceedings before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court, confers upon it any substantive or independent right beyond
what is expressly contemplated under the IBC.
45. The IBC is a special and self-contained legislation, having
overriding effect by virtue of Section 238 of the IBC, and it
exhaustively delineates the rights, remedies, and forums available to
stakeholders. The Respondent, having failed to exercise the remedies
provided under the statute at the appropriate stage, cannot, at a later
point, seek to derive substantive rights merely on account of its
participation in initial stages of the CIRP or by virtue of impleadment
in appellate proceedings. Any such recognition of rights dehors the
statutory framework would run contrary to the scheme of the IBC and
would undermine its efficacy.
46. Accepting the Respondent‟s contention that its claims may
nevertheless be pursued through proceedings outside the IBC
framework, inter alia, through arbitration would effectively permit a
challenge to a conclusory and cemented Resolution Plan. This would
not only circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the fora
under Chapter VI of Part II of the IBC but would also erode the
finality that attaches to insolvency proceedings.

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 73 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

47. That apart, it is a well-settled principle of law that a party who
fails to assert its rights diligently within the time and manner
prescribed by law cannot subsequently seek to revive such claims after
an inordinate and unexplained delay, or in collateral proceedings. The
maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt - the law assists
the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights - squarely
applies in such circumstances. A litigant cannot be permitted to
circumvent the consequences of its own inaction by attempting to
indirectly agitate the same claims in separate proceedings.
48. In the present case, where the Respondent had ample
opportunity to pursue its remedies within the statutory framework of
the IBC but chose not to do so, cannot now seek to reopen or re-
agitate those very claims under the guise of arbitral proceedings.
Permitting such a course would undermine the principles of finality,
certainty, and procedural discipline, and would defeat the legislative
intent underlying limitation and adjudicatory frameworks.
49. The doctrine of finality, as embedded in Section 31 of the IBC
and reinforced by the appellate structure under Sections 60, 61, and
62, ensures that all disputes pertaining to the claims of creditors are
conclusively determined within the CIRP framework itself. Once a
Resolution Plan is approved and attains finality within the statutory
hierarchy contemplated under the IBC, the claims of all stakeholders
stand crystallized and cannot be resurrected through resort to extra-
statutory proceedings and certainly not in the manner as sought in the
present matter. To hold otherwise would defeat the fundamental
objectives of the insolvency regime, namely , to ensure certainty, bring
closure to claims, and provide a clean slate to the corporate debtor

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 74 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

emerging from the resolution process. Any attempt to reopen settled
claims outside the framework of the IBC would not only undermine
the sanctity of the Resolution Plan but also destabilize the insolvency
regime as a whole.
50. In the Impugned Arbitral Award, the learned Arbitrator has
sought to distinguish the present case from the settled jurisprudence
relating to the “ clean slate doctrine ” by observing that the said
principle, as evolved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, is primarily
intended to protect a bona fide third-party resolution applicant who
takes over the corporate debtor. It has been further reasoned that
where the resolution process does not involve the induction of an
unrelated third party, but instead results in restructuring under the
existing promoter or management, the rationale underlying the clean
slate doctrine would not strictly apply. On this basis, the learned
Arbitrator proceeded to distinguish, and effectively disregard, the
binding precedents of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court relied upon by the
Claimant in support of the clean slate principle.
51. Again, with utmost respect to the learned Arbitrator, this Court
is unable to agree with the aforesaid distinction. Such a differentiation
between third-party resolution applicants and existing promoters finds
no basis in the statutory framework of the IBC, nor is it supported by
the jurisprudence laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
52. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also sought to advance
a similar line of reasoning, contending that since the Resolution Plan
in the present case was submitted by the promoter of the corporate
debtor itself, and did not involve the entry of an unrelated third-party
resolution applicant, the underlying rationale of the clean slate

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 75 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

doctrine stands diluted. According to this submission, creditors such
as the Respondent would remain entitled to pursue their claims
notwithstanding the approval of the Resolution Plan.
53. This contention, though prima facie appealing, proceeds on a
fundamentally erroneous understanding of the statutory scheme of the
IBC. The clean slate doctrine does not emanate merely from
considerations of commercial fairness towards a new or incoming
management. Rather, it flows directly from the statutory mandate
embodied in Section 31 of the IBC, which accords binding force and
finality to a Resolution Plan once it is approved by the learned
Adjudicating Authority. The provision does not create, either
expressly or by necessary implication, any distinction between cases
where the corporate debtor is taken over by a third-party resolution
applicant and those where restructuring takes place under the aegis of
the existing promoter or management. The binding nature of the
Resolution Plan attaches to the corporate debtor as a juristic entity,
and not to the identity of the person who ultimately assumes control
over its management.
54. Put differently, the legislative design of Section 31 of the IBC is
not predicated upon affording protection to a particular category of
resolution applicants, but upon ensuring certainty, finality, and
institutional integrity within the insolvency resolution framework.
Once a Resolution Plan is approved, it becomes binding upon the
corporate debtor and all its stakeholders, including creditors,
employees, and members. The legal consequence of such approval is
that the corporate debtor emerges from the CIRP with its liabilities
conclusively determined in terms of the Resolution Plan. The IBC,

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 76 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

therefore, operates on the principle of continuity of the corporate
personality, rather than on the identity of the management controlling
that personality at any given point in time.
55. The Respondent‟s argument, if accepted, would give rise to a
serious jurisprudential anomaly. It would imply that the statutory
finality attached to an approved Resolution Plan is contingent upon
the identity of the resolution applicant, thereby introducing
uncertainty into a regime that is designed to provide closure. Section
31 of the IBC employs language of the widest amplitude by declaring
that the approved Resolution Plan shall be binding on the corporate
debtor and all stakeholders. The focus of the provision is thus on the
determination and extinguishment of liabilities of the corporate
debtor, and not on the identity of the individual or entity assuming
control of its management.
56. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that while the IBC does
prescribe eligibility criteria for resolution applicants, for instance,
under Section 29A of the IBC, which disqualifies certain categories of
persons from submitting a resolution plan, the operation of such
provisions is confined to the stage of consideration and approval of
the Resolution Plan. Once a Resolution Plan has been duly approved
by the learned Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate fora, taking
into account the factual matrix of the case and in accordance with law,
its validity and binding effect cannot thereafter be assailed on the
basis of the identity or eligibility of the resolution applicant.
57. The statute does not contemplate any exception to the finality of
an approved Resolution Plan on this ground, particularly after the plan
has attained finality within the statutory framework, including

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 77 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

exhaustion of remedies up to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. To permit
such a challenge at a belated stage, or to carve out an artificial
distinction based on the identity of the resolution applicant post facto ,
would be contrary to the express scheme of the IBC.
58. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the clean
slate doctrine must be understood not as a privilege conferred upon a
particular class of resolution applicants, but as a structural principle
integral to the insolvency framework itself. The doctrine ensures that
once a Resolution Plan is approved and implemented, the corporate
debtor can continue its operations free from the burden of past
liabilities, except to the extent expressly provided in the plan. It is this
principle that safeguards the efficacy and credibility of the insolvency
process.
59. The Respondent‟s attempt to circumvent this statutory finality
by contending that the clean slate doctrine is inapplicable where the
corporate debtor continues under the stewardship of its existing
promoter is, therefore, wholly misplaced. The doctrine does not turn
upon the identity of the resolution applicant but upon the binding and
conclusive effect of the Resolution Plan on the corporate debtor. To
accept the Respondent‟s contention would enable creditors to revive
their claims through collateral proceedings merely by pointing to the
identity of the post-resolution management. Such an interpretation,
unless expressly provided by law, would defeat the legislative intent
underlying Section 31 of IBC and would destabilize the insolvency
regime by depriving it of certainty and closure.
60. Viewed in this light, the Respondent‟s contention that the clean
slate doctrine is inapplicable in the present case on account of the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 78 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

Resolution Plan having been implemented by the existing promoter
cannot be sustained. The statutory consequences of the approval of a
Resolution Plan remain uniform and unqualified, irrespective of the
identity of the resolution applicant. Once the Resolution Plan has been
approved and has attained finality within the framework of the IBC,
the liabilities of the corporate debtor stand conclusively determined.
The Respondent cannot, therefore, be permitted to resurrect its claims
through arbitral counterclaims, which in effect seek to reopen issues
that have already been settled within the insolvency resolution
process.
61. During the course of arguments before this Court, learned
counsel for the Respondent, in an attempt to assail the validity and
finality of the Resolution Plan, placed strong reliance upon the
Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rainbow Papers (supra) ,
as well as the decision of the Madras High Court in The National
Sewing Thread (supra) , the latter having substantially relied upon the
former.
62. Relying upon Rainbow Papers (supra) , it was contended that
the approval of a Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC is
conditional upon strict compliance with the requirements of Section
30(2) of the IBC, and that the learned Adjudicating Authority is duty-
bound to ensure such compliance prior to granting approval. It was
further submitted that the said judgment clarifies that the binding
effect of a Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC is not
absolute, and cannot be invoked to override or extinguish legitimate
statutory claims which were neither duly examined nor incorporated
within the resolution process.

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 79 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

63. This Court does not, and indeed cannot, take any exception to
the aforesaid legal position, which stands settled. However, it is of the
considered view that the reliance placed by the Respondent upon
Rainbow Papers (supra) is wholly misconceived and misplaced. The
said judgment is clearly distinguishable, both on facts and in the
context of the statutory framework within which it was rendered.
Significantly, the decision in Rainbow Papers (supra) arose in
proceedings under Section 62 of the IBC, being an appeal before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court against a judgment of the learned NCLAT
rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
64. The said judgment, therefore, emanated from a dispute that had
traversed the complete adjudicatory hierarchy contemplated under the
IBC, beginning with the learned NCLT as the adjudicating authority,
followed by an appeal before the learned NCLAT, and culminating in
an appeal before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Section 62. The
invocation of Section 62 necessarily presupposes that the aggrieved
party has pursued the remedies provided under the statute at each
stage of the adjudicatory process.
65. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that, in the present case,
the Respondent admittedly failed to avail itself of the statutory
remedies provided under the IBC to challenge the Resolution Plan
before the learned NCLT or the learned NCLAT. Instead, the
Respondent chose to approach the Hon‟ble Supreme Court directly at
a belated stage, where the Court exercises a narrowly circumscribed
jurisdiction confined to questions of law. Even in those proceedings,
no relief was granted in favour of the Respondent. Having consciously
elected not to pursue the statutory mechanism at the appropriate stage,

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 80 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

the Respondent cannot now seek to rely upon a precedent rendered in
the exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 62 of the IBC,
where the matter had travelled through the prescribed adjudicatory
hierarchy, in an entirely different procedural setting, namely, arbitral
proceedings. Such reliance is legally untenable.
66. The invocation of Rainbow Papers (supra) in the present
proceedings to question the finality of a Resolution Plan that has
attained conclusiveness, even up to the level of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court, is therefore clearly misplaced. The said judgment arose in the
context of a challenge pursued through the proper statutory hierarchy
under the IBC, whereas in the present case, the Respondent seeks to
bypass that very framework and reopen the consequences of the
Resolution Plan through collateral arbitral proceedings. Such an
approach is impermissible in law.
67. The Respondent has also placed vehement reliance upon the
judgment of the Madras High Court in The National Sewing Thread
(supra) . It was contended, on the strength of the said decision, that the
clean slate doctrine cannot be applied mechanically or universally in
all cases, and that its applicability must be assessed in light of the
factual matrix, particularly where issues of fairness, transparency, and
disclosure obligations during the CIRP are implicated. It was further
argued that where the same promoters or substantially identical
management continue to control the corporate debtor post-resolution,
the clean slate doctrine cannot be invoked to extinguish claims that
were not disclosed during the CIRP, especially where there existed a
duty on the suspended management to make full and complete
disclosure of liabilities.

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 81 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

68. At the outset, it must be noted that the Judgment of the Madras
High Court, in any event, carries only persuasive value. However,
even without entering into a detailed factual distinction or addressing
the selective propositions advanced by the Respondent, this Court,
with due respect, is unable to agree with the underlying reasoning of
the said decision to the extent it permits reopening or re-examination
of issues arising from CIRP proceedings that have already attained
finality in accordance with law. The reasons for such disagreement
have already been elaborated in the preceding portions of this
judgment. It suffices to reiterate that the findings in the said case were
rendered in a separate and subsequent proceeding, after the
culmination of the CIRP.
69. Furthermore, and as is evident, this is not a case that the claims
remained hidden or undisclosed. This is a case where the claims were
disclosed and considered and whereupon a resolution plan came to
pass.
70. In the considered opinion of this Court, permitting such an
approach, whereby the validity or effect of an already approved
Resolution Plan is revisited, commented upon, or effectively reopened
in subsequent or collateral proceedings, would have far-reaching and
deleterious consequences for the statutory framework of the IBC. The
IBC is fundamentally premised upon ensuring finality, certainty, and
conclusiveness of an approved Resolution Plan, so as to facilitate the
revival and continued operation of the corporate debtor.
71. If courts were to permit the reopening or indirect challenge to
such plans in proceedings outside the statutory framework of the IBC,
it would render every CIRP perpetually vulnerable to challenge, even

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 82 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

after approval by the learned Adjudicating Authority and affirmation
at the highest judicial levels. Such a position would defeat the very
objective of the IBC, create uncertainty for stakeholders, and
undermine the sanctity and efficacy of the insolvency resolution
process. This Court, therefore, cannot countenance any proposition
that allows concluded CIRP proceedings to be reopened in collateral
proceedings, and accordingly rejects the reliance placed by the
Respondent on the aforesaid judgment.

72. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the precedents relied upon by the Respondent
do not advance its case. None of the said authorities authoritatively
deal with a situation where, after the conclusion of the CIRP and after
the Resolution Plan has attained finality, including at the level of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court, claims are sought to be enforced through an
independent or collateral adjudicatory forum. The controversy in the
present case must instead be examined in light of the statutory
consequences that flow from the approval of a Resolution Plan, as
well as the doctrine of finality, which lies at the very core of the
insolvency framework under the IBC.

CONCLUSION:
73. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the finding returned by the learned Arbitral Tribunal on
Issue No. 6 is unsustainable in law, as it does not accord with the
statutory scheme of the IBC, particularly the binding force and finality
attached to an approved Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC.
74. Once the corporate insolvency resolution process attains finality

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 83 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

within the statutory framework contemplated under the IBC, the
claims of all stakeholders stand crystallized and are thereafter
governed exclusively by the terms of the Resolution Plan. Such claims
cannot be revived, re-agitated, or pursued through proceedings outside
the insolvency mechanism. The contrary view adopted by the learned
Arbitral Tribunal, which permits the resurrection of such claims in
arbitral proceedings, runs counter to the legislative intent and the
settled legal position, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

75. It necessarily follows that the adjudication undertaken by the
learned Arbitral Tribunal on Issue No. 5, concerning the merits of the
counterclaims, as well as the findings rendered, in part, on Issue No. 7
relating to post-award interest on such counterclaims, are vitiated, as
they rest entirely upon the foundational determination under Issue No.
6. Once the finding on Issue No. 6 is held to be legally untenable, the
consequential determinations granting relief on the counterclaims
cannot independently survive.
76. Accordingly, the Impugned Arbitral Award, to the extent it
upholds the maintainability and grants relief in respect of the
counterclaims, is liable to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 34 of the A&C Act, and is set aside to that extent.
77. As a natural corollary of the above findings, all consequential
proceedings arising from or premised upon the counterclaims must
also fail. The outcome of the present Petitions, including those
seeking enforcement and those challenging the counterclaims, is
therefore determined as follows:

A. O.M.P. (ENF.) (COMM) 281/2025
78. Insofar as O.M.P.(ENF.)(COMM) 281/2025 is concerned, the

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 84 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51

same proceeds on the premise that the counterclaims, as allowed by
the learned Arbitral Tribunal, are valid and enforceable. In view of the
findings recorded hereinabove, whereby the counterclaims themselves
have been held to be legally unsustainable and the award to that extent
has been set aside, the said petition does not survive. It is accordingly
dismissed.
79. No order as to costs.

B. O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 and O.M.P. (COMM) 470/2025
80. Insofar as the cross-objection petitions filed by the respective
parties are concerned, to the extent they arise out of or relate to the
counterclaims adjudicated by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, the same
are rendered infructuous in light of the setting aside of the award on
counterclaims. Consequently, any challenge, claim, or right predicated
upon such counterclaims does not survive, and the said petitions are
rejected to that extent.
81. However, insofar as any challenges to the Impugned Arbitral
Award relating to the claims of MBL Infrastructure ( the claimant in
the arbitral proceedings ) are concerned, it is clarified that the merits
of those claims have not been examined in the present judgment.
82. Accordingly, for consideration of those aspects, list on
09.09.2026.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
MAY 04, 2026/sm/kr

O.M.P. (COMM) 469/2025 & connected matters Page 85 of 85

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEERU
Signing Date:05.05.2026
18:13:51