National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Sets Aside Order on Salary Claims Post-CIRP Completion. The Tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain salary claims after the resolution plan was approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from an order dated 07.07.2020, where the Adjudicating Authority allowed an application by certain ex-employees of Maharashtra Seamless Limited for payment of salaries post the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appellant, Maharashtra Seamless Limited, challenged this order, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority had become functus officio after the approval of the resolution plan on 21.01.2019, and that the respondents lacked the authority to represent other employees without proper authorization. The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not appeared despite being served notice. The Adjudicating Authority's reasoning was based on the premise that the successful resolution applicant could not evade responsibility for employee-related disputes. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that once the CIRP was resolved, the Adjudicating Authority could not entertain matters outside the approved resolution plan. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order, and directed the respondents to seek their claims in an appropriate forum. No costs were awarded.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Jurisdiction Post-Resolution - Functus Officio Principle - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 31 - The Tribunal held that once a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is successfully resolved, the Adjudicating Authority becomes functus officio regarding matters not covered by the approved resolution plan. The appeal was allowed as the respondents were directed to seek remedy in an appropriate forum for their salary claims (Paras 5-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to allow salary claims after the resolution plan was approved.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 07.07.2020 in IA No. 325 of 2020 was set aside. The respondents were directed to seek remedy in an appropriate forum for their salary claims. No costs were awarded.

Law Points

  • CIRP completion
  • functus officio
  • authority to represent
  • approved resolution plan
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 130

TA (AT) No. 29/2021 (CA (AT) (Ins) No. 741/2020)

2026-08-18

Justice N. Seshasayee, Jatindranath Swain

Ms. Wamika Trehan, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Varun Chopra

Maharashtra Seamless Limited

S. Hari Prasad, Rati Ranjan Dash, V. Venkatachalam, United Seamless Tubular Private Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an order allowing salary claims post-CIRP completion.

Remedy Sought

Maharashtra Seamless Limited sought to set aside the order allowing salary claims.

Filing Reason

The respondents claimed unpaid salaries after the resolution process.

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority had allowed the salary claims despite the resolution plan being approved.

Issues

Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority post-CIRP Authority of respondents to represent other employees

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority was functus officio after the resolution plan approval. The respondents claimed entitlement to salaries based on their employment status during the CIRP.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that once a CIRP is successfully resolved, the Adjudicating Authority cannot entertain matters outside the approved resolution plan, reinforcing the functus officio principle.

Judgment Excerpts

The applicants, who resigned on 28.02.2019 from the Corporate Debtor - company with one month notice were the employees of the Corporate Debtor when new management was inducted. We are not able to subscribe to the line of reasoning adopted by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority allowing salary claims by ex-employees after the resolution plan was approved.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: 31
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appeal Against Bar Council's Dismissal of Complaint — Emphasizes Timely Disciplinary Proceedings.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Additional FSI Approval as Abuse of Process. Court finds lack of bonafides and imposes costs of Rs. 5,00,000 for misuse of public interest litigation jurisdiction.