M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. versus MUKUL KUMAR & ANR.

M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. versus MUKUL KUMAR & ANR.

The appeal is dismissed because the Resolution Professional followed the prescribed process for inviting claims, the appellant (a commercial litigant) had deemed knowledge from public announcement and was negligent in not filing its claim within the prescribed period (delay of 287 days), and allowing the belated claim after COC approval of the resolution plan would undermine finality of the resolution process and prejudice the successful resolution applicant (following Essar Steel).

Parties
Appellant: M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.; Respondents: Mukul Kumar & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court From NCLAT Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (cirp), Resolution Plan and Committee of Creditors, Inclusion of Belated Claims, Contingent Claims, Public Announcement and Deemed Knowledge, Condonation of Delay
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (cirp) Resolution Plan and Committee of Creditors Inclusion of Belated Claims Contingent Claims Public Announcement and Deemed Knowledge +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

Appellant

Mukul Kumar & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court From NCLAT Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a commercial creditor's claim arising from an arbitral award pending in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may be entertained at a belated stage after the resolution plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors but before approval by the Adjudicating Authority
  2. 2 Whether the Resolution Professional had a duty to include contingent liability arising from the pending arbitral proceedings in the information memorandum or as a contingent claim
  3. 3 Whether the time limits for filing claims under the IBC/IBBI Regulations are directory and whether delay of 287 days ought to be condoned

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Resolution Professional followed the prescribed process for inviting claims, the appellant (a commercial litigant) had deemed knowledge from public announcement and was negligent in not filing its claim within the prescribed period (delay of 287 days), and allowing the belated claim after COC approval of the resolution plan would undermine finality of the resolution process and prejudice the successful resolution applicant (following Essar Steel).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Parties to bear their own costs