Unsubstantiated claims cannot be admitted after the resolution plan is submitted for approval to the Adjudicating Authority.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Resolution Professional was justified in rejecting the Appellant’s claim due to lack of substantiating evidence and non-responsiveness

The court held

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the rejection of the claim was legally justified

It also directed

The court ruled that a claim cannot be admitted if it is unsubstantiated by evidence, missing from the CD’s records, and submitted/pursued after the closure of the claim window and submission of the Resolution Plan to the Adjudicating Authority

The impugned order of the NCLT dated 03.12.2024 was upheld as it suffered from no error of law

All pending interlocutory applications were closed

01Facts

The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, supplied construction materials to the Corporate Debtor (CD) between 2016 and 2022

p. 2

The CD was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 08.09.2023, with a public announcement issued on 14.09.2023

p. 3

The Appellant submitted its claim via Form B on 09.12.2023, after the stipulated cut-off period

p. 4

The Resolution Professional (RP) requested additional information and supporting documents via emails on 15.12.2023, 15.02.2024, and 20.02.2024 to verify the claim against the CD’s books

p. 5, 6

The Appellant failed to respond or provide the requested documents

p. 6

Subsequently, the RP rejected the claim on 23.08.2024 because the debt did not appear in the CD’s ledger and the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and filed with the NCLT

p. 8, 9

The Appellant challenged this rejection via IA No. 750/2024, which the NCLT Bengaluru dismissed on 03.12.2024

p. 1, 12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Resolution Professional was justified in rejecting the Appellant’s claim due to lack of substantiating evidence and non-responsiveness

p. 9, 13

ii.2. Whether a claim can be entertained at a matured stage of CIRP after the Resolution Plan has been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority for approval

p. 10, 13

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 60 and Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, governing the jurisdiction and appeals process

p. 2, 14

It strictly interpreted Regulations 7, 9A, 12, and 13 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which mandate the timeframe and modalities for submission and verification of claims

p. 4, 5, 7

Specifically, the court relied on Regulation 13(1-B), which restricts the acceptance of late claims if received less than seven days before the meeting of creditors for voting on a Resolution Plan

p. 11

The court emphasized that "time is the essence" of the IBC framework

p. 14

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 60 Section 61

04Reasoning

The court observed that the Appellant failed to adhere to the statutory timelines under Regulation 7 and 12 for claim submission

p. 4

Despite the belated filing, the RP attempted to verify the claim under Regulation 13, but the Appellant failed to provide the necessary breakup of invoices and interest clauses despite multiple reminders

p. 7, 8

The court noted that the claim could not be collated because it was absent from the Corporate Debtor’s books of accounts

p. 7, 9

Furthermore, the court highlighted that by the time the Appellant sought judicial intervention, the CIRP had reached a "matured stage" where the CoC-approved Resolution Plan was already pending approval before the NCLT

p. 13

The court reasoned that allowing such a claim at this stage would violate the procedural mandate of the Regulations and disrupt the time-bound nature of the insolvency process

p. 13, 14

The Appellant’s inaction and failure to provide documentation were deemed the primary causes for the rejection

p. 13