National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Upholds Claim of Creditor in Insolvency Proceedings — Validity of Claim During Moratorium Affirmed. The court found that claims based on orders passed during the moratorium are not maintainable under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

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

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by the Resolution Professional of Raguleela Builders Private Limited against an order of the Adjudicating Authority that admitted a claim of ₹ 5,20,22,000/- made by Mysore Petro Chemicals Limited. The respondent had entered into an agreement for the purchase of a commercial unit, which was not delivered as per the agreement. After a series of legal proceedings, including a complaint to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and an appeal to the Real Estate Regulatory Appellate Authority (RERAA), the RERAA ordered the corporate debtor to pay the respondent. The appellant contended that the claim was based on an order passed during the moratorium period, rendering it void. The respondent argued that the claim crystallized only after the RERAA's order and that they had duly notified the RP about their claim. The court analyzed the implications of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, concluding that the claim based on the RERAA order was not maintainable as it created a new liability during the moratorium. The court directed the RP to verify any payments made by the respondent and include their claim accordingly.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Maintainability of Claims - Claims during Moratorium - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 14 - The court held that any claim based on an order passed during the moratorium period is not maintainable as it creates a new liability against the corporate debtor, which is prohibited under Section 14. The claim based on the RERAA order was deemed invalid due to the moratorium in place during the CIRP process (Paras 6-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the claim of the respondent is maintainable given the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Resolution Professional to verify if the respondent had made any payment of consideration to the corporate debtor and to include its claim.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • moratorium
  • claims admission
  • RERA
  • CIRP
  • statutory obligations
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 28

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 361 of 2024

2026-05-27

Justice N. Seshasayee, Arun Baroka

Mr. Raji v Kumar Pandey, Mr. Aalok Jain, Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya

Ms. Vandana Garg

Mysore Petro Chemicals Limited

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting a claim during insolvency proceedings.

Remedy Sought

The Resolution Professional sought to challenge the admission of the claim.

Filing Reason

Claim based on an order of the RERAA for compensation.

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority had previously directed the RP to consider the respondent's claim.

Issues

Whether the claim based on the RERAA order is maintainable during the moratorium. Whether the claim was filed belatedly.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the claim was based on an order passed during the moratorium, rendering it void. The respondent contended that the claim crystallized after the RERAA's order and was timely filed.

Ratio Decidendi

Claims based on orders passed during the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are not maintainable as they create new liabilities against the corporate debtor.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that any claim based on an order passed during the moratorium period is not maintainable as it creates a new liability against the corporate debtor. The idea behind moratorium, as contemplated under Sec.14, is to freeze the assets and liabilities of the CD during CIRP.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 18.12.2023, which admitted the claim of the respondent.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 14, Section 18, Section 25, Section 29, Section 238
  • Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Withdrawal of Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(vi) of Income Tax Act for Educational Trust — Violation of Natural Justice. Order passed without providing opportunity of hearing and without considering objections viola...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Employees' Right to Bonus Under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 — Clarifies Applicability Despite Authorised Controller Appointment.