NCLAT: Cannot Withhold Income Tax Refund Received by Bank During CIRP In CD's Account  ||  All. HC: With S. 111 of BNS Covering 'Organised Crime' It Appears Gangsters Act has become Redundant  ||  P&H HC: Cannot Allow Changes in Admission Form after Submission  ||  Bom. HC: Findings in Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Relied Upon While Adjudicating Civil Proceedings  ||  P&H HC Directs Jail Authorities to Decide Parole Applications within Four Months  ||  Allahabad HC: Merely Supporting Pakistan Will Not Prima Facie Attract Section 152 of BNS  ||  HP HC Upholds Wife’s Claim of Adverse Possession after Husband’s Death  ||  Patna HC: Maintenance may be Allowed in Disputed Marriages if Relationship Was Socially Accepted  ||  Karnataka HC: State to Respond in 3 Weeks regarding Mandatory Teaching of Kannada  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Unhappy in Marriage is No Proof of Abetment of Suicide    

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