Calcutta HC: In Framing Arbitration Agreement Words Used Must be Certain, Definite  ||  J&K HC: Can’t Evaluate Performance of Employee When on Sanctioned Leave During Covid  ||  Kerala HC: Public Paying Toll Fees Casts Responsibility on NHAI to Ensure Smooth Traffic  ||  Calc. HC: Writ Court Rejecting Claims Over Disputed Issues Doesn’t Bar Arbitration if Clause Exists  ||  Gujarat HC Notifies Revised SOP for Virtual/Hybrid Hearing of Cases  ||  Kerala HC: Mere Assessment of Mental Illness by Referring to Mental Health Board Won’t Serve Purpose  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Validity of 7th proviso inserted in S. 2(b) of Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act  ||  SC to Suspend Operation of Committee Under UP Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025  ||  SC Recalls Direction to Remove Allahabad HC Judge from Criminal Jurisdiction after CJI’s Request  ||  Supreme Court: Enforcement Directorate Cannot Act Like a "Crook"    

Regional Provident Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Vandana Garg - (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) (12 May 2021)

Once a resolution plan is duly approved by Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of IBC, the claims shall stand frozen and will be binding on Corporate Debtor and its employees

MANU/NL/0178/2021

Insolvency

Present Appeal emanates from the Order, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, whereby the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT approved the Resolution Plan, which waves off a major portion of the Provident Fund dues owed by the Corporate Debtor.

In the instant case, the Appellant, despite filing a claim of Rs. 1,95,01,301 has raised a claim of Rs. 2,84,69,797 i.e. much higher than the amount claimed by the Appellant in its claim before the Resolution Professional (RP). The Appellant's claim admitted by Respondent No. 1/RP had been considered while formulating the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor. The said Resolution Plan was further approved by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT vide its Order in conformity with Section 30 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. The Appellant has not provided any reason or justification for raising the enhanced claim of Rs. 2,84,69,797 which is much higher than the amount claimed.

After approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of IBC, the claims as provided in the Resolution Plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or any Local Authority, Guarantors and other Stakeholders. On the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims that are not a part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished. No person will be entitled to initiate continuing any proceedings regarding a claim that is not part of the Resolution Plan.

The Appellants claim about Provident Fund dues amounting to Rs. 1,95,01,301, which was earlier raised at the time of initiation of CIRP and was later admitted, stood frozen and will be binding on all the Stakeholders, including the Central Government. After approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims that are not part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished. No person is entitled to initiate or continue any proceeding regarding a claim that is not part of the Resolution Plan. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : RESOLUTION PLAN   APPROVAL   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved