State Of Punjab Through Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Patiala vs Jalesh Kumar Grover, Resolution Professional

The present Application has been filed on 03.04.2025 by Excise and Taxation office- cum- State Tax Office, Ward 9, Rajpura (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) under sub section (5) of section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” or “IBC”), read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “NCLT Rules, 2016”) for seeking the following directions :

The averments made by the Applicant in its Application and presented/argued by the learned counsel for the Applicant are summarised hereunder:

It is noted that the Resolution Plan was earlier rejected by this Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 07.05.2025 for being noncompliant with Section 29A(g) of the Code. Aggrieved thereby, the matter was carried in appeal, and the Hon’ble NCLAT, vide Order dated 11.12.2025, passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 825 of 2025, remanded the matter back to this Adjudicating Authority and held as follows:

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties and have gone through the material available on record carefully, and the judgment relied upon the issues raised in the present case. It is noted that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has opposed the claim on the ground that the same was filed after an inordinate delay and after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors.

In the present case, it is an admitted position that the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor commenced on 25.11.2019 and a Public Announcement was issued on 27.11.2019, whereby the last date for submission of claims was fixed as 09.12.2019. The Resolution Plan came to be approved by the Committee of Creditors on 17.11.2023, and the same was filed before this Adjudicating Authority for approval, which was reserved for orders vide Order dated 29.11.2024. It is also noted that the Resolution Plan was earlier rejected by this Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 07.05.2025 for being non-compliant with Section 29A(g) of the Code. Aggrieved thereby, the matter was carried in appeal, and the Hon’ble NCLAT vide Order dated 11.12.2025 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 825 of 2025 set aside the said finding and remanded the matter to this Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the matter was heard again and reserved for orders vide Order dated 23.02.2026. The present claim of the Applicant was filed on 12.08.2024 and revised on 13.12.2024, i.e. after approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors and at a stage when the CIRP had substantially progressed. Thus, the claim has been filed after a considerable delay beyond the prescribed timeline.

Regulation 12 of the IBBI Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 mandates that a creditor shall submit its claim with proof on or before the last date mentioned in the public announcement. The proviso to Regulation 12 permits submission of claims within ninety days from the insolvency commencement date. Further, Regulation 13(IB) and 13 (1C) of the IBBI Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 also provide for consideration of any belated claims that are filed after the period specified under Regulation 12(1) and upto 7 days before the date of the meeting of creditors for voting on the Resolution Plan. In the present case, not only had the extended period long expired, but the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors prior to the filing of the claim. As such, entertaining such a belated claim at this stage would unsettle the commercial decision already taken by the Committee of Creditors and would defeat the time-bound framework of the Code.

The Applicant has sought to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Limited (2023) 9 SCC 545 to contend that delay in filing of claim cannot be the sole ground for rejection and that a secured creditor cannot be denied its status. The said judgment dealt with the status of a statutory authority as a Secured Creditor in the context of liquidation and the effect of a statutory charge. The issue in the present case is not the determination of the status of the Applicant as a Secured Creditor, but whether a claim filed after inordinate delay and after approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors can be directed to be admitted. The recognition of a creditor as secured does not dilute the mandatory timelines prescribed under the Code and the Regulations. Hence, the case relied on by the Applicant does not apply to the present case.

It is pertinent to note that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is beneficial legislation enacted to ensure the timely resolution of insolvency and the maximisation of the value of assets of the Corporate Debtor, and is not intended to be invoked as a substitute for recovery proceedings or enforcement of time-barred or disputed contractual claims. The delay of 9 months in filing the claim is substantial and remains unexplained by any sufficient cause that would justify interference at this advanced stage of the CIRP. Allowing the present Application would effectively reset the process and jeopardise the finality attached to the commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors. The mandate of the Code for a time-bound resolution would stand defeated if the claims are permitted to be introduced after approval of the Resolution Plan. In view of the above discussion, we hold that RP has taken a correct decision while rejecting the claim of the Applicant.

Accordingly, IA(I.B.C.)/774(CH)2025 in CP(IB)No.406/Chd/PB/2018 stands dismissed and disposed of.