1. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 20-1-2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 1721, thereby dismissing the writ petitions filed by the present appellant.
2. The writ petitions were basically filed with a prayer seeking issuance of mandamus directing that, Notification No. 38 of 2002-Cus (N.T.) dated 13-6-2002 was not applicable to the imported goods consisting of 1647.414 metric tonnes of crude palmolein covered under the bill of entry for home consumption dated 12-6-2002. The aforesaid writ petitions were rejected. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed.
3. The appellant has filed IA No. 85939 of 2021 for pointing out the subsequent developments and the disposal of the appeal in terms thereof.
4. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the present proceedings, Standard Chartered Bank had filed proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “NCLT”) in respect of the present appellant under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”). The application of Standard Chartered Bank under Section 7 IBC for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) came to be admitted by the learned adjudicating authority on 15-12-2017.
5. After the procedure, as required under the various provisions of IBC was completed, an application under Section 30(6) IBC came to be filed by the resolution professional for the grant of approval of the resolution plan of the successful resolution applicant. Vide order dated 24-7-2019 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 24865 read with order dated 4-9-2019 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 34900, the application of the resolution professional for the grant of approval of the resolution plan of the successful resolution applicant came to be allowed. As such, the management of the appellant came to be vested in the successful resolution applicant.
6. The short point that is involved is as to whether the claim of the present respondent which was admittedly not lodged before the resolution professional after public notices were issued under Sections 13 and 15 IBC could be considered at this stage.
7. We have heard Mr Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms Nisha Bagchi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 2, the Revenue.
8. Mr Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by this Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657 He submits that as a matter of fact, the office of Respondent 2 at Mangalore itself had lodged a claim before the resolution professional in respect of one of their demands. However, so far as the demand, which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings is concerned, no claim was lodged in respect thereof, and as such, in view of the law laid down by this Court while interpreting Section 31 IBC, the respondents are now not entitled to claim any amount, which is not a part of the resolution plan.
9. Ms Bagchi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 2, the Revenue, on the contrary submits that no notice was issued to the Authority at Mangalore. She further submits that there was certain confusion as to whether the operational debt as defined under Section 5(21) IBC would cover the claim of Respondent 2, the Revenue. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of said confusion, there is a possibility that the office of Respondent 2 might not have lodged the claim with respect to the present proceedings.
10. We find that the present appeals are squarely covered by the law laid down by this Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657 It will be relevant to refer to para 102 of the said judgment which reads as under :
“102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us 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.
102.2. The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the I&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the I&B Code has come into effect.
102.3. Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued.”
11. Admittedly, the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by Respondent 2 after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 IBC. As such, on the date on which the resolution plan was approved by the learned NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the resolution plan, would survive.
12. In that view of the matter, the appeals deserve to be allowed only on this ground. It is held that the claim of the respondent, which is not part of the resolution plan, does not survive. The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of admission of the appeals along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be refunded to the appellant.
13. The appeals are allowed, accordingly. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.