NCLT Mumbai Rejects Indo Global Employees’ Claims Filed 18 Months Late, Says Stakeholders Must Follow IBC Timelines
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai has dismissed six applications filed by former employees of Indo Global Soft Solutions and Technologies Private Limited, noting that their claims were submitted nearly 18 months after the last statutory date for filing claims under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The bench observed that stakeholders participating in the corporate insolvency resolution process must be vigilant and assert their rights within the timelines prescribed by the Code.
A bench comprising Judicial Member K. R. Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan dealt with applications filed by six former employees seeking directions to the Resolution Professional (RP) to consider and admit their salary-related dues, including PF, professional tax, TDS and full-and-final settlements. The tribunal recorded that Indo Global’s CIRP commenced on 12 April 2022 and a public announcement was issued on 22 April 2022 inviting claims, with 4 May 2022 fixed as the last date for submission. Despite this, the employees’ claims were forwarded only on 25 October 2023 by the company's HR representative, long after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved the first resolution plan on 30 August 2023.
The tribunal also noted that the applications were filed even later — between August and September 2025 — after the CoC had already approved a second resolution plan on 21 July 2025 and after the plan approval application had been reserved for orders on 25 August 2025. Rejecting the submission that the employees were unaware of the CIRP, the tribunal pointed out that their HR representative had escalated their grievances to the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI, which showed their awareness of the CIRP and its implications. The bench observed that “having been fully aware of the consequences of the CIRP of the CD, they cannot now take a plea that they are ignorant employees.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar (2023), the tribunal reiterated that the public announcement of insolvency constitutes deemed knowledge for stakeholders and warned that accepting belated claims would render the CIRP an unending exercise. It noted the Supreme Court’s caution that reopening settled issues could cause other similarly placed individuals to “jump onto the bandwagon,” defeating the time-bound nature of the Code.
The tribunal also recorded the RP’s argument that the claims were unsupported by documents, partly pertained to periods after cessation of employment, and appeared to be an attempt to obstruct final approval of the resolution plan. Observing that the applications were filed only after the CoC approved the resolution plans twice, the Tribunal held that the applicants cannot be allowed to “put a spoke in the wheels of the CIRP of the CD with their belated claims.” Concluding that allowing the delayed claims would be contrary to the time-bound framework of the IBC, the tribunal dismissed all six applications as unmaintainable and declined to interfere with the progress of the resolution plan.
Appearance
For Applicants: Advocates Darshan Naik, Reshma Shirke, and Prabodh Sanade.
For Respondent: Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia and Advocates Rohan Agarwal, Shivani Sinha, Anugya and Meera for Resolution Professional; Advocates Nausher Kohli, Ashish Parwani, and Gitika Makhija for SRA.
Cause Title: Nitin Adate and Others v Ravi Sethia In Yes Bank Limited v. Indo Global Solutions and Technologies Private Limited
Case No: C.P. (IB) NO. 377/MB/2021
Coram: Judicial Member K. R. Saji Kumar, Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan
