Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs Sandeep Mahajan Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1421 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a resolution plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority and the plan does not provide for a claim, that claim stands extinguished, and a belated claim filed after the approval cannot be admitted or revived in an appeal against the rejection of an application for condonation of delay, where the order approving the plan has not been challenged.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Mahajan, RP of Schon Ultra Wares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Anuradha Upadhya, Ms. Deeksha Khandelwal, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ashish Verma, Mr. Nikhil Thakur, Ms. Kriti, Advocates for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
03.02.2026: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
counsel for the Respondent. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
25.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No.161/(ND)/2025.
Application was filed by the Appellant for acceptance of belated claim which
was rejected by the impugned order.
2. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 01.08.2023.
The publication was made by the Resolution Professional and 16.08.2023 was
last date for submission of claims. Resolution Plan was submitted and
approved by the CoC. Appellant filed claim before the Resolution Professional
on 18.09.2024 for an amount of Rs.85,47,770/-. The Adjudicating Authority
by the impugned order rejected the application refusing to condone the delay,
Cont'd.../ the claim being with 324 days' delay from 90th day of CIRP. Aggrieved by the
order, this appeal has been filed.
3. Appellant has brought on the record the copy of order dated 16.10.2025
by which the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the Adjudicating
Authority. When the claim of the Appellant was not included in the Resolution
Plan and Resolution Plan having already approved, all claims stood
extinguished. The order approving the Resolution Plan is not subject matter
of challenge on behalf of the Appellant. At this stage, when Resolution plan
has been approved and claim of all claimants who are not part of the plan are
extinguished, we are of the view no relief can be granted to the Appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant has pointed out part of the Resolution
Plan at Para 4 where details of pending IAs was mentioned. Mere mention of
the details of pending IAs cannot come to ensure any benefit to the Appellant
when claim of the Appellant was not accepted in the CIRP, in view of the fact
that plan has already was approved.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that observation made
in Para 7 of the impugned order that Resolution Professional has informed
the Appellant on 05.12.2023 was not correct and Appellant never received any
information from the Resolution Professional regarding initiation of CIRP and
when he came to know about the CIRP, they have filed claim on 24.09.2024.
6. Be as it may. It is a fact that Appellant has filed the claim after delay
of 324 days from the 90th day of CIRP, as noted above. The Resolution Plan
being approved by the CoC prior to submission of claim and as on date it is
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1421 of 2025 2 of 3 approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 16.10.2025 no relief can be
granted to the Appellant in this appeal. We, thus, dismiss this appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1421 of 2025 3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free