IBC [CaseLaws]

Caution against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC – The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon – We find it difficult to unleash the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the resolution applicant –RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs Mukul Kumar 2023 INSC 816

Section 5(24) – Related Party- the expressions ‘related party’ and ‘relative’ contained in the definition sections must be read noscitur a sociis with the categories of person mentioned in Explanation I. So read, it would include only persons who are connected with the business activity of the resolution applicant – The expression ‘connected person’ would also cover a person who is in management or control of the business of the corporate debtor during the implementation of a resolution plan – Swiss Ribbons Private Limited and Another Versus Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17 – Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited vs Punjab National Bank 2023 INSC 809

Section 29A – Crucial link in ensuring that the objects of the Code are not defeated by allowing ‘ineligible persons’ responsible for running a company (corporate debtor) aground, to return in the new avatar of a resolution applicant – Eva Agro Feeds Private Limited vs Punjab National Bank 2023 INSC 809