J&K&L HC Quashes 65-Year-Old's Detention, says Cattle Smuggling isn't Public Disorder  ||  Karnataka HC Bars Denial of MV Inspector Posts over Experience with Non-Existent HGV/HPV Vehicles  ||  P&H HC: Lengthy Incarceration alone is No Substantial Change for Repeat Bail Plea  ||  Meghalaya HC Flags Amicus' Non-Appearance amid Lawyers' Strike, Stresses Loyalty to Justice  ||  MP HC: Arms Act doesn't allow Sports Firearm Licence Conversion to Self-Defence Category  ||  Delhi HC: Public Funding of LTC, CGHS Benefits doesn't Mandate Personal Disclosure under RTI  ||  Delhi HC: Fake Caste Certificate alone cannot Justify Removing Advocate from State Rolls  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Stop Sale of 47 Law Books in Family Copyright Dispute  ||  Supreme Court: S. 394 IPC Conviction Requires Proof of Robbery or Attempted Robbery  ||  Supreme Court Questions MP HC's Cryptic Reduction of Murder Conviction as 'Shocking'    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved