01Facts
The Petitioner was sanctioned projects by Respondent No. 2 through Respondent No. 1 in 2010, with funds released in 2015
¶ 2In 2019, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Petitioner before the NCLT. A resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors on 16.10.2020 and subsequently by the NCLT on 08.02.2021 under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)
¶ 3In August 2023, the Respondents initiated recovery proceedings for Rs. 2,46,78,328/- regarding dues from the pre-resolution plan period
¶ 1The Respondents argued that the "clean-slate doctrine" did not apply because the successful resolution applicant was an existing promoter, and the Petitioner had suppressed the CIRP proceedings from them
¶ 5-602Issues
i.1. Whether Respondents can initiate or continue recovery of a claim arising prior to the approval of a resolution plan under the IBC
¶ 4ii.2. Whether the "clean-slate doctrine" applies when the successful resolution applicant is an existing promoter/director of the Corporate Debtor rather than a third party
¶ 5iii.3. Whether the lack of direct notice to creditors regarding CIRP proceedings (beyond public announcement) justifies the revival of pre-resolution claims
¶ 1103Law Applied
Section 31(1) of the IBC, which mandates that an approved resolution plan is binding on all stakeholders
¶ 8Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., establishing that all claims not included in the resolution plan stand extinguished on the date of approval
¶ 8MBL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Pradeep Colonisers and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., which holds that the doctrine attaches to the juristic entity of the corporate debtor regardless of the identity of the resolution applicant
¶ 10RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar regarding Section 15 of the IBC, confirming that public announcements constitute deemed knowledge for commercial entities
¶ 11Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 13Section 15Section 31
04Reasoning
The court rejected the Respondents' attempt to distinguish Ghanashyam Mishra on facts, noting that Section 31(1) of the IBC does not differentiate between statutory and contractual dues; both are extinguished if not part of the plan
¶ 9Regarding the Respondents' challenge to the Petitioner's bona fides due to the successful applicant being a promoter, the court observed that the IBC focuses on the continuity of the corporate personality and institutional integrity, not the identity of the management
¶ 10The court emphasized that the "clean-slate doctrine" is a statutory mandate under Section 31, not merely a rule of commercial fairness for third parties
¶ 10Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument regarding the lack of direct communication, ruling that under Section 15 of the IBC, the statutory public announcement through newspapers constitutes "deemed knowledge," and a commercial entity cannot plead ignorance of CIRP proceedings to revive extinguished claims
¶ 1105Holding
The court held that once a resolution plan is approved and attains finality, all pre-existing liabilities of the corporate debtor stand conclusively determined
¶ 10The court allowed the petition and set aside the recovery communications dated 03.08.2023 and 04.08.2023
¶ 13The court concluded that respondents cannot resurrect claims through collateral proceedings for a period prior to the approval of the resolution plan
¶ 13Original Court PDF
Technopak Advisors Pvt. Ltd.vsNabard Consultancy Services Private Limited & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
