NCLAT: Creditor Aware of CIRP Cannot Submit Claim After CoC Approval
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling, the New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), held that a creditor who was aware of the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) but failed to file a claim within the prescribed period cannot be permitted to submit such a claim after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an agreement dated 29.05.2015 entered into between United News of India (Corporate Debtor) and T.C.A. Surveyors & Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant), whereby the Appellant was tasked with developing properties located across various cities. A sum of ₹1 crore was deposited by a group company of the Appellant—Poddar Projects Limited (PPL).
However, by letter dated 15.03.2017, the Corporate Debtor communicated its inability to proceed with the agreement due to objections raised by stakeholders, effectively terminating the Definitive Agreement dated 29.05.2015.
Subsequently, the Appellant issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), on 21.03.2018. The Operational Creditor then filed a petition under Section 9 of the IBC (Company Petition IB No. 479 of 2018), which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 31.10.2018, holding that the transaction did not constitute "operational debt".
CIRP Proceedings and Rejection of Appellant’s Claim
The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 19.05.2023. The Resolution Professional (RP) filed IA No.60 of 2024 seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. In the meantime, on 25.10.2024, the Appellant submitted its claim via Speed Post. However, the RP, by email dated 31.10.2024, rejected the claim, stating that the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the CoC and no new claim could be considered at that stage.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed IA No.507 of 2025 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking directions to the RP to admit its claim of ₹9.2 crores. The Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 12.02.2025, approved the Resolution Plan (IA No.60 of 2024) and dismissed the Appellant’s IA No.507 of 2025. This led to the present appeal before the NCLAT.
Arguments Raised
The Appellant argued that its debt should have been treated as a "financial debt" and that the RP was duty-bound to include the same in the Information Memorandum. It was also submitted that there was no automatic extinguishment of claims unless explicitly stated in the Resolution Plan.
Conversely, the Respondents, including the CoC, contended that the Appellant was aware of the CIRP, which was acknowledged by the Appellant in proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Despite this, no claim was submitted during the CIRP. Further, the claim was mentioned in the financial statements as “other creditor”, and the RP had already classified it accordingly in the Information Memorandum. Since the claim was filed after CoC approval, it could not be entertained.
NCLAT’s Observations
The Tribunal observed that the Appellant was undeniably aware of the CIRP, as evidenced by pleadings in a Commercial Suit before the Delhi High Court filed in 2019. The Appellant had ample opportunity to file its claim during the CIRP, like other creditors, but failed to do so. The submission of the claim on 25.10.2024—after the Resolution Plan’s approval—rendered it inadmissible.
The NCLAT further noted that although the financial statements of the Corporate Debtor reflected the Appellant's amount under “Other Long-Term Liabilities,” no claim was filed by the Appellant during the public announcement period or even while other creditors were submitting their claims.
Additionally, the Resolution Plan explicitly categorized creditors into secured financial creditors, operational creditors, employees, statutory authorities, and others. The category of “other creditors” (under which the Appellant’s claim fell) was excluded from payment under the Resolution Plan.
Importantly, the Tribunal emphasized that since the Appellant had not filed any claim, the Resolution Professional had no obligation under the CIRP Regulations to admit the claim merely because it was reflected in financial statements. The RP had acted in accordance with the law by classifying the Appellant in the Information Memorandum but not entertaining the claim after CoC approval.
Verdict
The NCLAT upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and dismissed the appeal, holding: “The Appellant, being aware of the initiation of CIRP, is solely responsible for not filing the claim on time… The claim submitted by the Appellant after approval of the Resolution Plan has rightly not been accepted by the Resolution Professional.” It concluded that the Resolution Professional did not violate any provision of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, and the Appellant had no valid basis to seek admission of its belated claim.
Appearance
For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Mr. Shivam Pal Sharma, Mr. S. Vinod, Mr. Anuj Kr. And Mr. Auritro Mukherjee, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Nidhi Yadav and Ms. Pooja Bahry, Advocates for RP. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Mr. Devesh Dubey, Advocates for CoC/R-2. Mr. Bishawjit Dubey, Mr. Kaustabh Rai, Ms. Aishwarya Singh and Mr. Prakhar Dixit, Advocates for R-3.
Cause Title: T.C.A. Surveyors & Advisors Pvt. Ltd. V. Pooja Bahry, Est. RP for United News of India & Ors.
Case No: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 533 of 2025
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan [Chairperson], Arun Baroka [Member (Technical)]
[Read/Download order]
