Sharad Kumar Bakliwal vs J. P. Engineers Private Limited

[Arising out of order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Bench, Court - II) in I.A. No. 1697 of 2022 in (IB)-1048(ND)2019]

IN THE MATTER OF: Sharad Kumar Bakliwal ...Appellant Versus J.P. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Amol Vyas, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate for R-2.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 24.02.2025 passed

by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi,

Special Bench, Court - II) in I.A. No.1697/2022. The adjudicating authority

rejected the IA filed by the appellant, aggrieved by which order, this appeal

has been filed.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal

are:

i. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the

corporate debtor - J.P. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. commenced vide order dated 26.02.2020. Publication was made and claims were invited and

last date for submission of claim was 13.03.2020.

ii. Appellant submitted its claim on 24.02.2022 i.e., after inordinate delay.

Appellant's claim having not been admitted, an I.A. was filed by the

appellant being I.A. No. 1697/2022 seeking admission of the belated

claim of the appellant.

iii. Resolution Professional (RP) filed a reply to the application and oppose

the application pleading that claim has been filed with delay of 648

days. The adjudicating authority by the impugned order dated

24.02.2025 rejected the application of the appellant, aggrieved by which

order, this appeal has been filed.

iv. When the appeal came for consideration before this Tribunal, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent submits that resolution plan has

already been approved on 19.03.2025 and in view of the said approval,

the appeal has become infructuous. Respondent filed an affidavit on

02.02.2025 bringing on record copy of the order dated 18.03.2025 in

I.A. 16/2024.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that

even after the resolution plan has been approved on 18.03.2025 appellant can

very well press his appeal challenging the order dated 24.02.2025 by which

I.A. for accepting the claim was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant

in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the two judgments of

this Tribunal in 'CNH Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'SREI Equipment

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1098 of 2025 2 of 7 Finance Ltd. & Anr.' in [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1545/2023] and in

'Oldenburgische Landesbank AG' Vs. 'Sateyndra P. Khorania (RP) &

Anr.' reported in [(2025 ibclaw.in 1026 NCLAT].

4. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submissions of the

appellant submits that resolution plan having been approved and the claim

of the appellant being not part of the resolution plan and all claim shall stand

extinguished by approval of the resolution plan, no relief can be granted to

the appellant in this appeal. It is further submitted that appellant has not

even challenged the order dated 18.03.2025 approving the resolution plan,

hence appeal need to be dismissed on this ground alone.

5. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

6. There is no dispute between the parties with respect to the facts and

sequence of the events. The claim was filed by the appellant after expiry of

the date for submission of the claim. The copy of the order dated 09.03.2025

has been brought on the record which indicate that resolution plan has been

approved. The claim of the appellant having never been accepted in the CIRP,

the claim of the appellant is not part of the resolution plan. The appellant

has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in 'CNH Industries (India) Pvt.

Ltd.' (supra). In the above case, the appellant has categorically pleaded that

it is not challenging the resolution plan nor pay out under the resolution plan.

In the pay out, the appellant who was operational creditor, was proposed NIL

amount. Only issue raised by the appellant was that his claim ought to have

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1098 of 2025 3 of 7 been accepted with set off which amount was payable by the corporate debtor

to the appellant. The RP has not permitted set off hence in the above context

application was filed. This Tribunal in the said judgment has clearly noted

that appellant is not challenging the resolution plan nor he is aggrieved by

the pay out in the resolution plan. In the appeal, the order under challenge

was also order approving the resolution plan and, in this context, in

paragraphs 25 to 27 of the judgment, following was laid down:

"25. As noted above, the Appellant in the present case is not challenging the approval of Resolution Plan, nor is questioning the payouts in the Resolution Plan, hence, whether the claim of Appellant which is accepted by the RP for an amount of Rs.8,66,89,866/- or claim is accepted of Rs.3,40,46,082/-, shall not in any manner affect the payout to the Appellant. Whether the claim of Rs.3,40,46,082/- of the Appellant is accepted or the claim of Rs.8,66,89,866/- is accepted, which has been admitted by the RP, the Resolution Plan in no manner is affected, nor payout to the Operational Creditor shall be changed.

26. In result of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the Appellant's submission that his claim ought to have been accepted only for an amount of Rs.3,40,46,082/-, after adjusting set-off of the amount of Rs.5,56,59,526/- deserve to be accepted, which in no manner shall affect the approval of the Resolution Plan or the impugned order or its implementation.

27. In result of the above discussion, we dispose of the Appeal in following manner:

(I) The order impugned dated 11.08.2023 approving the Resolution Plan of the CD - SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited is not interfered with.

(II) The Appellant's claim submitted in Form-B on 22.10.2021, claiming an amount of Rs.3,40,46,082/-

(after giving set-off of Rs.5,56,59,526/-) shall be treated to have been accepted in the CIRP of the CD, which acceptance of claim in no manner affect the

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1098 of 2025 4 of 7 payout to the Operational Creditor under the impugned order.

(III) The Appellant is entitled for set-off the amount due to the CD as per Column-8 of Form-B submitted on 22.10.2021, which was due to the CD."

7. Thus, the above was a case where order approving the resolution plan

was under challenge, whereas, the appellant was not challenging the pay out

to the appellant and was only raising a limited issue of set off his claim which

was accepted by this Tribunal. The said judgment in no manner supports the

case of the appellant.

8. Another judgment in 'Oldenburgische Landesbank AG' (supra) relied

by the appellant, the order of this Tribunal dated 04.12.2025 indicate that on

the application which was rejected by the NCLT which was under challenge,

both the RP and SRA pleaded that matter be sent back for reconsideration.

In paragraphs 14 & 15, the above facts have been noticed:

"14. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/ RP at first attempted to defend the impugned judgement and the decision of the RP on the ground that the appellant cannot receive payment from two sources with regard to the same claim, however when confronted as to how the limitation issue has been considered by the tribunal without discussing the various dates on which the claim has arisen, filed and preferred by the appellant and how the part of the claim has been admitted by the RP if the same was barred by limitation and also as whether this issue was existing before the tribunal at all and also whether any discussion has been made by the tribunal in the background of various provisions of the buyer credit guarantee policy, he fairly submits that it would be better if the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for deciding these issues afresh.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1098 of 2025 5 of 7

15. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2/ SRA is also of the view that it would be better if the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for decision afresh."

9. This Tribunal in the facts of the above case remitted the matter for

reconsideration of the application afresh. The above judgment also does not

support the case of the appellant.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the

judgment of this Tribunal in 'Navalkumar D. Bhoot' Vs. 'Degree Cotsyn

Pvt. Ltd.' in [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 485/2022], where this Tribunal

came to examine the case which was a case where plan has already been

approved and the appeal was filed against the application filed by the

appellant where the claim of the appellant in 'Form-B' was rejected. This

Tribunal after hearing the parties in paragraphs 11 & 12 held that appeal has

become infructuous. The approval of the plan was noticed in paragraph 9,

where in paragraph 9 following was noticed:

"9. At this stage, Counsel for the SRA has submitted that the present appeal has become infructuous because the Appellant is not entitled to any claim. In this regard, he has submitted that the resolution plan was approved by the CoC and was further approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 11.03.2022 (same day) when the impugned order in the present two appeals was passed. It is submitted that on 01.04.2022, the management of the Corporate Debtor was handed over by the RP to the SRA i.e. 'M/s Manjeet Cotton Pvt. Ltd.'. It is further submitted that on 02.06.2022 the Monitoring Committee was dissolved as the plan was fully implemented. Counsel for the SRA has submitted that now it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Through the Authorized Signatory Vs. Edelweiss Asset

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1098 of 2025 6 of 7 Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director and Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 657, that once the resolution plan is finalized then all the claims get extinguished. In this context regard may be had to Para 102.1 of the aforesaid decision which read as under:-

"102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan"

The above judgment of this Tribunal fully supports the case of the

respondent that after approval of the plan, all claim shall stand extinguished.

11. We thus are of the view that in this appeal no relief can be granted to

the appellant.

In view of the approval of the plan, the appeal is dismissed as having

become infructuous.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI

19th December, 2025

himanshu

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1098 of 2025 7 of 7