Allahabad HC: Divorce on Desertion Ground Does Not Bar Wife’s Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC  ||  Allahabad HC: Divorce on Desertion Ground Does Not Bar Wife’s Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC  ||  Bombay HC on Nicotine Pouch Ban: Duty-Free Shops Must Comply with Domestic Laws  ||  SEBI Settles Hindenburg-linked Disclosure Cases Involving Five Adani Firms for Rs. 1.5 Crore  ||  Kerala High Court: Navy Court-Martial Proceedings Can Be Prosecuted by Investigating Officer  ||  Bombay HC: Arrest is Drastic; ED Cannot Halt Section 50 Questioning and Arrest on Same Material  ||  Supreme Court Proposes Unified Platform for Investment of Funds Deposited by Litigants  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Can Interfere When Tender Acceptance Violates NIT Conditions  ||  SC: Recovery of Tainted Money Without Proof of Bribe Demand Insufficient for Conviction  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Production of Original Deed Not a Ground to Discharge Accused    

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