Belated Claims under IBC: Why Claims Filed After CoC Approval of a Resolution Plan Are Generally Not Admitted

A corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) works only if everyone bidding for the corporate debtor knows what liabilities they are taking on. That is why the IBC requires creditors to file their claims within the prescribed timelines, and why tribunals have been reluctant to admit belated claims that surface after the committee of creditors (“CoC”) has already voted on a resolution plan. The same principle applies to government departments. This article examines the law on belated claims, the key judicial decisions, and the changes to the claims framework through September 2026.

Claims Framework for CIRP Claims

On admission, the interim resolution professional makes a public announcement under Section 15 inviting claims and stating the last date for submission. Under Section 18(b), claims are received and collated. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, in force in this respect from 26 May 2026, added that claims are to be submitted “in such manner as may be specified”, and inserted an Explanation that the interim resolution professional shall verify claims and, if required, determine their value.

The IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”) set the detailed timelines. Following the amendment effective 18 September 2023, as described in published commentary, a proviso to Regulation 12(1) allows claims to be submitted up to the date of issue of the request for resolution plans or ninety days from the insolvency commencement date, whichever is later. Readers should check the current text of Regulation 12, which the IBBI has amended from time to time.

A public announcement in newspapers is treated as notice to the world. In the words of the Supreme Court discussed below, a plea of unawareness of the announcement is not one ordinarily available to a commercial party.

Supreme Court on Belated Claims under IBC

Essar Steel. In Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 (15 November 2019), the Supreme Court held that a successful resolution applicant “cannot suddenly be faced with ‘undecided’ claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up”. All claims in the CIRP must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that the applicant knows what must be paid.

Ghanashyam Mishra. In Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657 (13 April 2021), the Court held that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, claims not part of the plan stand extinguished, and this binds the Central Government, State Governments and local authorities.

RPS Infrastructure. In M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 INSC 816 (11 September 2023; Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.), a claim based on an arbitral award was filed more than a year after the public announcement, when the CoC had already approved a resolution plan that was awaiting the Adjudicating Authority’s approval. The Supreme Court upheld the refusal to admit it, observing that “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“.

Application to a State Stamp Duty Claim

In Superintendent of Stamps & Inspector General of Registration v. Avil Menezes, Resolution Professional of AMW Autocomponent Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1591 of 2023 (NCLAT, New Delhi, 20 May 2024; Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Naresh Salecha and Indevar Pandey), the stamp authority of the State of Gujarat had filed a government claim under the IBC for stamp duty and penalty of ₹15,38,79,179 on 23 March 2023, against a public announcement issued on 3 September 2020. By then the CoC had approved the plan and the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench had approved it by order dated 12 October 2023.

Relying on Essar Steel, Ghanashyam Mishra and RPS Infrastructure, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal. It held that belated government claims in CIRP should not be accepted after CoC approval and that permitting them would undermine the finality of the insolvency process. It also noted that the approved plan addressed stamp duty in relation to its own implementation. A preliminary objection that the claim had been filed in the wrong form was not upheld; the appeal failed on delay and finality.

The Counterweight: Claims the Resolution Professional Should have Recorded

The principle against belated claims does not permit a resolution professional to ignore dues that are evident from the corporate debtor’s own records or from claims properly lodged. In Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 INSC 102 (12 February 2024), a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the form in which a claim is submitted under the CIRP Regulations is directory, not mandatory, so long as the claim is supported by proof. It also affirmed that the NCLT has inherent power to recall an order approving a resolution plan in appropriate cases, and on the facts remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the plan.

The two lines are consistent. RPS Infrastructure and Avil Menezes concern creditors who approached the process late without adequate explanation. Greater Noida concerns whether a claim that was before the resolution professional was properly dealt with.

The Position After the 2026 Amendments

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 reinforces finality:

• Section 31(6) now expressly provides that, unless the plan provides otherwise, claims against the corporate debtor and its assets prior to approval are extinguished, and no proceedings, including proceedings for assessment, may be continued or instituted on the basis of such claims. Explanation III deems this to apply to plans approved since the commencement of the Code, except matters that have attained finality.
• Section 31(5) protects licences, permits and similar grants associated with the approved plan from suspension or termination if the related obligations are complied with.
• Section 53(1)(e)(i), through a new Explanation, fixes the priority of Government dues in liquidation to those for the two years preceding the liquidation commencement date.

Explanation I to Section 31(6) preserves claims against promoters, persons in management or control, and guarantors. A creditor whose claim against the corporate debtor is extinguished may therefore still have recourse against those persons, depending on the facts.

Practical Points

• The public announcement fixes the timetable for filing claims in CIRP; late awareness is rarely an adequate explanation for a commercial party or a statutory authority.
• The closer the process is to CoC approval, the less likely a belated claim under the IBC is to be admitted.
• Government authorities are bound by the same CIRP claims process and by the extinguishment effect of an approved resolution plan.
• Resolution professionals must still verify claims and account for liabilities reflected in the corporate debtor’s records, and must record decisions on claims before them.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a belated claim be filed under the IBC?

A belated claim may be considered subject to the CIRP Regulations and the stage of the insolvency process.

What happens to claims not included in a resolution plan?

Claims extinguished under Section 31 of the IBC cannot generally be enforced against the corporate debtor after plan approval.

Are government claims covered under the IBC?

Yes. Government departments and statutory authorities must follow the CIRP claims process and are bound by an approved resolution plan.

Can a resolution professional accept a late claim?

The resolution professional must consider claims in accordance with the IBC and CIRP Regulations, but late claims face stricter scrutiny, particularly after CoC approval.

Legal Information Disclaimer

This article provides general information about Indian law as it stood on 16 September 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an advocate–client relationship. Statutes, rules and judicial interpretations change, and their application depends on the facts of each matter. Readers should consult the current official text of the laws and judgments cited and should not act on this information without advice specific to their circumstances. This article is published for legal awareness and education and is not intended to advertise or solicit professional work.

Sources / Authorities

1. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 15, 18, 31, 53 (as amended) — IBBI – Legal Framework
2. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (No. 6 of 2026), clauses 11, 19 and 32 — Gazette text (IBBI); Notification S.O. 2625(E) dated 22 May 2026 — IBBI
3. IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 — Regulation 12 — IBBI – Regulations
4. Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531, Supreme Court of India, 15 November 2019
5. Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657, Supreme Court of India, 13 April 2021
6. M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 INSC 816, Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021, Supreme Court of India, 11 September 2023 — Indian Kanoon
7. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 INSC 102, Civil Appeal Nos. 7590–7591 of 2023, Supreme Court of India, 12 February 2024 — Indian Kanoon
8. Superintendent of Stamps & Inspector General of Registration v. Avil Menezes, RP of AMW Autocomponent Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1591 of 2023, NCLAT, New Delhi, 20 May 2024 — Indian Kanoon