Case Note & Summary
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai heard three company appeals (Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 232/2025, 234/2025, and 236/2025) filed by Mr. Naseer Ahmed, Mrs. Nuzhat Aisha Nazeer, and Mr. Awaiz Ahmed against Mr. Ravindra Beleyur, the Resolution Professional (RP) of a corporate debtor undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appellants had filed claims before the RP, but the RP rejected their claims on the ground that they were submitted after the last date for submission of claims as per the CIRP timeline. The appellants challenged this rejection before the NCLAT, also seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals. The core legal issue was whether the RP was justified in rejecting claims filed after the stipulated deadline under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appellants argued that the delay was minimal and should be condoned, while the RP contended that the timeline for claim submission is mandatory and cannot be relaxed. The court analyzed Section 30 of the IBC, which governs the submission and verification of claims during CIRP. It held that the timeline for filing claims is sacrosanct and the RP has no discretion to entertain late claims. The court also considered the applications for condonation of delay in re-filing but found no sufficient cause to condone the delay. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed all three appeals, upholding the RP's decision to reject the claims. The judgment reinforces the strict adherence to timelines in insolvency proceedings and the limited role of the RP in claim verification.
Headnote
A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Claim Filing - Limitation - Section 30 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The issue was whether claims filed after the last date for submission of claims under CIRP can be entertained by the Resolution Professional. The court held that the Resolution Professional is not obligated to accept claims filed beyond the stipulated deadline, as the timeline is sacrosanct under the Code. (Paras 1-14) B) Condonation of Delay - Re-filing - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - The appellants sought condonation of 26 days delay in re-filing the appeal. The court considered the explanation but found no sufficient cause to condone the delay, as the delay was not adequately explained. (Paras 3-5) C) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Resolution Professional - Powers - Section 30 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Resolution Professional has the authority to verify and accept or reject claims based on the timeline prescribed under the Code. The court upheld the RP's decision to reject late-filed claims, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the CIRP timeline. (Paras 6-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Resolution Professional was justified in rejecting the claims of the appellants on the ground that they were filed after the last date for submission of claims under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
Final Decision
The NCLAT dismissed all three appeals, upholding the RP's decision to reject the claims. The applications for condonation of delay in re-filing were also dismissed.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay in re-filing
- Limitation for filing claims under IBC
- Role of Resolution Professional in claim verification
- Section 30 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
- 2016
