Claims not part of an approved Resolution Plan stand extinguished under the "clean slate" principle.

The Petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator or, alternatively, the reference of disputes to an arbitrator previously appointed by the Madras High Court in a related matter.

The Respondent opposed the petition, contending that the Respondent-Company was undergoing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and that a Resolution Plan had already been approved by the NCLT, Mumbai, on January 30, 2026.

The Petitioner had consciously elected not to submit its claims during the insolvency proceedings despite being aware of the ongoing process.

Whether an arbitrator can be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after a Resolution Plan for the Respondent-Company has been approved by the NCLT under the IBC.

Whether claims that were not submitted during the CIRP stand extinguished upon the approval of a Resolution Plan under the "clean slate" principle.

The court primarily applied Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which mandates that an approved Resolution Plan is binding on all stakeholders.

It relied on the "clean slate" principle, which ensures that a successful resolution applicant starts unencumbered by past undisclosed liabilities.

Furthermore, the court followed the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in *Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.* (2021), which held that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not included in the plan stand extinguished, and no person is entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings regarding such claims.

The court reasoned that the prayers sought by the Petitioner were legally untenable because the Petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of filing a claim before the IRP/RP during the CIRP.

Applying the legislative intent of the IBC, the court noted that the "clean slate" principle is vital for the revival of a corporate debtor; allowing "surprise claims" post-approval would make resolution plans unworkable and deter prospective applicants.

Since the Petitioner’s claims were not lodged during the insolvency process and did not form part of the NCLT-approved Resolution Plan dated January 30, 2026, those claims were extinguished by operation of law upon the plan's approval.

Consequently, no dispute remained that could be referred to arbitration.

The court held that all claims not forming part of the approved Resolution Plan stand extinguished.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and all pending applications.