Delhi HC: Property Disputes Between In-Laws and Daughter-In-Law are Not Exclusively For Family Court  ||  Delhi High Court: After Probate is Granted, A Will Does Not Require Fresh Proof under Section 68  ||  Ker HC: Periodic Replacement and Maintenance of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Included in Compensation  ||  Madras High Court: DNA Test Not Required For Mother to Donate Kidney to Her Son  ||  Delhi HC: Pre-Summoning Evidence Opportunity Must be Granted Even in Civil-Natured Criminal Cases  ||  J&K&L HC: UAPA Trials Cannot Linger and Must Proceed With Day-To-Day Hearing under NIA Act  ||  Allahabad HC: FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Not Vitiated For Lack of Pre-Registration Hearing  ||  Allahabad HC: FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Not Vitiated For Lack of Pre-Registration Hearing  ||  Delhi HC: Private Schools May Increase Fees Without Prior Approval if Declared Before Session Begins  ||  Supreme Court: Omission of Accused in Inquest Report Alone Does Not Indicate Innocence    

Bharat Pipe Fitting Co. Vs. Prowess International Private Limited - (National Company Law Tribunal) (13 Jun 2022)

Application under Section 9 of the IBC after completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor is not maintainable

MANU/NC/3063/2022

Insolvency

Present is a Company Petition filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by Bharat Pipe Fitting Co. (Operational Creditor), seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against Prowess International Private Limited ("Corporate Debtor").

The date of default mentioned by the Operational Creditor is 24th July 2013, and the instant petition was filed on 09 August 2019. It is to be noted that the Corporate Debtor had admitted into CIRP vide order dated 20 April 2017. Subsequently, a resolution plan also been approved by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 17 October 2017. The Operational creditor had not filed any claim with the Resolution Professional after the Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP and has filed the instant petition after the approval of the resolution plan. The same indicates gross negligence on part of the Operational Creditor.

The Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, in the matter of Sanjay Chemicals (India) Private Limited vs. Sharon Bio-Medicine Limited, held that since the outstanding dues were prior to the period of initiation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' and the creditor had not filed the claim at that stage, the application under Section 9 of the IBC after completion of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against 'Corporate Debtor' was not maintainable.

Further, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. lays down that when the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, 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 and state government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims which are not a part of resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan.

Present Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that, the right of the Operational Creditor to seek remedy under Section 9 of the IBC has been extinguished. Petition dismissed.

Tags : OPERATIONAL CREDITOR   RIGHT   CIRP  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved