Jayanta Kumar Bose vs Pramod Kumar Sharma Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2029 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A claim filed in a CIRP after the last date fixed for submission of claims, and after the resolution plan has already been approved by the CoC and remitted for reconsideration, may be rejected by the Resolution Professional or the adjudicating authority on the ground of the delay alone, where the delay is admittedly more than six years from the last date for submission of claims and more than five years from the initial approval of the plan; the claimant's assertion of lack of knowledge of the initiation of the CIRP and absence of communication does not, in these circumstances, compel acceptance of the late claim.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Jayanta Kumar Bose ...Appellant Versus Pramod Kumar Sharma ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sabhay Choudhary and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
06.01.2026: This appeal has been filed against an order dated
26.11.2025 by which I.A. No. 5733/ND/2025 filed by the appellant has been
dismissed.
2. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the
corporate debtor commenced on 03.08.2018 and public announcement was
made on 13.08.2018. Last date for submission of the claim was 25.08.2018,
the resolution plan was approved on 09.05.2019 and the same was pending
consideration before the adjudicating authority and has been remitted back
to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration on 20.08.2025.
Appellant filed its claim on 15.11.2025 and the Resolution Professional (RP)
having not admitted the claim, an I.A. was filed which has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not
aware of the initiation of the CIRP and further he was not sent any communication by the RP, hence the delay caused was 2637 days in filing of
the claim.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the regulation which
require the communication has been amended in the year 2023 only,
whereas, publication was made in the year 2018 and it was more than after
6 years the claim has been filed by the appellant, whereas, plan was approved
in the year 2019 and is pending reconsideration under the orders of the
adjudicating authority.
5. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
6. It is an admitted fact that claim was filed after more than 6 years from
last date of submission of the claim and further more than 5 years from the
date when the plan was initially approved by the CoC. In such circumstances,
adjudicating authority did not commit any error rejecting the application filed
by the appellant to accept the claim.
We do not find any error in the order. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2029 of 2025 2 of 2
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