NCLT Ahmedabad Rejects Creditor's Claim After Resolution Plan Approval Despite Civil Court Decree

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad, has rejected a creditor's plea to pursue a ₹14.11 lakh claim against Techno Forge Limited after approval of its resolution plan, despite a civil court decree in the creditor's favour.

The tribunal held that the claim could not be condoned or restored after the resolution plan was approved, as the creditor had failed to lodge it during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

The bench of Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Velamur G Venkata Chalapathy was dealing with an application filed by a partner of Central Rock-Fuel Suppliers, which had supplied furnace oil to Techno Forge against six invoices issued between August 21, 2015, and October 25, 2015. The outstanding principal amount was ₹14,11,571.

The supplier filed a civil suit to recover the dues on September 15, 2017. The suit was decreed in its favour on August 18, 2023, with interest from the date of filing.

Techno Forge entered CIRP on July 2, 2020, and a public announcement inviting claims was issued on July 8, 2020. The supplier, however, did not file its claim before the resolution professional within the prescribed period.

It attributed the delay to the medical condition of Nilesh Patel, who managed its business, accounts and litigation, as well as its lack of actual notice of CIRP. The supplier maintained that the omission was neither wilful nor deliberate.

It also argued that Techno Forge knew about the civil proceedings and had participated in them through counsel. Since the liability could be traced through the company's books and records, the supplier contended that its claim could have been considered during CIRP even though it had not formally lodged it.

The resolution plan was approved on February 2, 2024. The supplier later sought to enforce its civil court decree, but the Commercial Court, Vadodara, dismissed the execution petition in August 2025.

Before the NCLT, the supplier argued that it was not seeking to reopen CIRP or alter the plan, but wanted its claim considered under the plan's provision for contingent liabilities, capped at ₹11,41,500. Citing Indian Bank and Bank of Baroda rulings, it argued that existing plan provisions could still be implemented.

The tribunal rejected the plea, observing that the claim had not been filed during CIRP and the resolution professional had followed the prescribed process.

The tribunal further observed that the supplier should have approached it before approval of the resolution plan, even if it had obtained a civil court decree. It also noted that the provision for contingent liabilities appeared to cover liabilities identified by the resolution professional through claims received during CIRP.

The tribunal observed that the legal proceedings had reached finality during the moratorium and that the claim was no longer enforceable because it had not been filed during CIRP.

Holding that the application was not maintainable after the claims had been considered and the company resolved under the approved plan, the NCLT rejected and disposed of the application