Whatsapp
Unawareness About CIRP Initiation Not a Ground for Belated Claims: Toyota Financial Services Case Analysis
A case analysis of Toyota Financial Services India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain (Erstwhile RP) & Ors., decided by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 10.09.2023.
Introduction
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 represents a paradigm shift in India’s approach to insolvency resolution. The legislation prioritizes time-bound resolution to protect creditor interests while facilitating the revival of financially distressed companies. Within this framework, the issue of belated claims in the CIRP assumes particular significance, as timely submission of claims is essential for the orderly conduct of insolvency proceedings. The case of Toyota Financial Services India Ltd. vs. Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain (Erstwhile RP) & Ors., decided by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi Bench Court-V on September 10, 2023, addresses a fundamental question: whether lack of awareness about CIRP initiation can justify the acceptance of claims filed years after statutory deadlines have expired. This judgment reinforces the principle that creditors cannot invoke ignorance of proceedings to circumvent time limitations intended to ensure efficient resolution.
Background of the Case
The corporate insolvency resolution process for MK Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor) commenced on September 19, 2019, following an order from the NCLT. Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain was appointed as the Resolution Professional tasked with managing the CIRP proceedings. The Resolution Professional issued a public announcement on September 21, 2019, inviting claims from creditors with a deadline of October 4, 2019, for submission. Toyota Financial Services India Ltd., a financial creditor with outstanding debts from the Corporate Debtor, failed to submit its claim within the stipulated timeframe or even within the extended ninety-day period from the insolvency commencement date.
The Committee of Creditors conducted its twentieth meeting on November 27, 2020, wherein it approved a resolution plan submitted by Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd., the Successful Resolution Applicant. The approval process progressed, and by the time Toyota Financial Services became aware of the CIRP proceedings through its collection agent in May 2023, the resolution plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors. On May 23, 2023, Toyota Financial Services filed its claim before the Resolution Professional, representing a delay of 1,327 days from the original deadline. The claim submission occurred approximately three years after the Committee of Creditors had approved the resolution plan.
Toyota Financial Services argued that it possessed a substantial voting share in the Committee of Creditors and that exclusion of its claim would cause grave prejudice. The financial creditor contended that the Information Memorandum prepared by the Resolution Professional should have included its claim to accurately reflect the Corporate Debtor’s liabilities. However, the Resolution Professional rejected the claim, citing the belated filing without sufficient cause and failure to seek condonation of delay. The applicant then approached the NCLT seeking directions to admit its claim.
Legal Framework Governing Claim Submission
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 establishes the overarching framework for insolvency resolution in India [1]. Section 15 of the Code mandates that the public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall contain specific information, including the last date for submission of claims as may be specified [2]. This provision ensures that all stakeholders receive adequate notice and opportunity to participate in the resolution process, while also drawing a clear line between timely participation and the consequences that may follow in cases involving belated claims in the CIRP. The public announcement serves as the primary mechanism through which creditors are informed of their right and obligation to submit claims within the prescribed timeframe.
Section 29 of the Code requires the Resolution Professional to prepare an information memorandum containing relevant information for formulating a resolution plan [3]. The information memorandum becomes the foundation upon which resolution applicants assess the Corporate Debtor’s financial position and devise appropriate revival strategies. Accurate representation of liabilities in the information memorandum depends substantially on the timely submission of claims by creditors, as belated claims in CIRP can introduce serious information asymmetries that undermine the integrity of the resolution process and prejudice the interests of diligent creditors and resolution applicants.
CIRP Regulations on Claim Submission
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 provide detailed procedural requirements for claim submission. Regulation 12 underwent significant amendment in 2018 to address persistent delays in the resolution process caused by late claim filings [4]. Prior to the amendment, creditors could submit claims until the approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors, creating uncertainty and prolonging proceedings. The amended Regulation 12 established a ninety-day deadline from the insolvency commencement date for submission of belated claims.
Regulation 12(1) currently provides that a creditor shall submit claim with proof on or before the last date mentioned in the public announcement. The regulation establishes a clear primary deadline for claim submission, typically fourteen days from the appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional. Creditors who fail to meet this initial deadline may still submit claims, but only within the extended period contemplated under the regulation. The amendment sought to balance the need for finality in proceedings with the recognition that some creditors might legitimately require additional time to collate documentation and submit claims.
However, the regulatory framework does not create an unlimited right to file claims at any stage of proceedings. After the extended period expires, the Resolution Professional has no obligation to accept claims. This limitation ensures that the resolution process proceeds in an orderly manner without constant disruptions from new creditors emerging at advanced stages. The regulation reflects a policy choice prioritizing the collective interests of timely creditors and the resolution process over individual creditors who fail to exercise reasonable diligence in monitoring their debtors’ financial status.
Judicial Interpretation and Precedents
The question whether timelines under Regulation 12 are mandatory or directory has generated substantial litigation. In State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., the Supreme Court observed that the time period specified in Regulation 12 is directory rather than mandatory [5]. This interpretation appeared to open the door for acceptance of delayed claims even after statutory deadlines had passed. However, subsequent decisions have clarified that the directory nature of the timeline does not eliminate the requirement for creditors to demonstrate reasonable diligence and provide sufficient cause for delays.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has consistently held that while the timeline may be directory, claims cannot be accepted after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors. In several decisions, the NCLAT emphasized that accepting belated claims at advanced stages would derail the entire insolvency process, which must be completed in a time-bound manner. When a resolution plan has already been received and approved by the Committee of Creditors, the possibility of resolution plan failure increases dramatically if claims are accepted at a belated stage.
Courts have recognized that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process operates within strict temporal constraints. Section 12 of the Code mandates completion of the process within 330 days from the insolvency commencement date, including any extensions and time spent in legal proceedings [6]. This mandatory outer limit reflects the legislative intent to prevent indefinite prolongation of insolvency proceedings. Accepting claims years after the commencement of proceedings conflicts fundamentally with this time-bound approach. The Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta held that while the word “mandatorily” in Section 12 was struck down, the general principle of time-bound resolution remains intact.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vaibhav Goel & Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. reinforces the finality principle in insolvency resolution [7]. The Court held that once a resolution plan is approved, no belated claims can be included, as this would undermine the principle of allowing resolution applicants to restart operations with a clean slate. Resolution applicants rely on the information available during the bidding process to formulate their plans and determine appropriate valuations. Introducing new claims post-approval fundamentally alters the financial landscape and creates commercial uncertainty that defeats the purpose of the resolution process.
Analysis of the NCLT Decision
The NCLT’s decision in Toyota Financial Services India Ltd. v. Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain rests on several key principles. First, the Tribunal emphasized the purpose of public announcements in CIRP proceedings. Public announcements are designed to make all interested parties and stakeholders aware of the CIRP initiation, enabling them to submit claims and facilitating preparation of the information memorandum. The information memorandum, issued after collection and collation of claims, provides resolution applicants with all relevant information necessary to formulate legally and financially sound resolution plans.
Second, the NCLT found that Toyota Financial Services failed to demonstrate due diligence in monitoring its debtor’s financial status. The claim was filed more than three years after the approval of the resolution plan in the twentieth Committee of Creditors meeting held on November 27, 2020. A delay of 1,327 days from the original deadline cannot be justified merely by claiming ignorance of the proceedings. Financial creditors, particularly institutional lenders like Toyota Financial Services, are expected to maintain robust systems for tracking their loan portfolios and monitoring significant developments affecting their borrowers.
Third, the Tribunal recognized that accepting the belated claim would undermine the entire resolution process. By the time Toyota Financial Services sought to file its claim, the Committee of Creditors had already evaluated multiple proposals, conducted extensive deliberations, and approved a specific resolution plan based on the information available at that time. Introducing a new creditor with substantial voting rights at this advanced stage would necessitate reopening the bidding process, revising the information memorandum, and potentially invalidating the approved plan. Such disruption defeats the fundamental objective of time-bound resolution.
Fourth, the decision reinforces the principle that creditors bear responsibility for protecting their own interests. The public announcement was published in accordance with regulatory requirements, including publication in English and regional language newspapers with wide circulation. The fact that Toyota Financial Services only learned of the proceedings through its collection agent in May 2023 reveals inadequacies in the creditor’s internal monitoring systems rather than any defect in the CIRP process itself. Creditors cannot outsource their vigilance obligations and then invoke their own negligence as grounds for exceptional treatment.
The Role of Due Diligence in Creditor Protection
Financial institutions extend credit based on careful assessment of borrower creditworthiness and risk. This assessment necessarily includes ongoing monitoring of borrower financial health and early identification of distress signals. Sophisticated financial creditors possess resources and expertise to track their exposures and take timely action when borrowers experience financial difficulties. The expectation of due diligence becomes particularly relevant in the context of insolvency proceedings, where statutory timelines create hard deadlines for creditor participation.
The NCLT’s emphasis on due diligence reflects a broader principle of commercial responsibility. Creditors who fail to monitor their loan portfolios effectively should not be permitted to disrupt resolution processes that have progressed substantially based on information from diligent creditors. Allowing late claims on grounds of ignorance would create perverse incentives, potentially encouraging creditors to adopt passive approaches with the expectation that belated participation will be accommodated. Such an approach would fundamentally undermine the time-bound nature of insolvency resolution.
The due diligence requirement extends beyond mere awareness of CIRP initiation. Creditors must also act promptly once they become aware of proceedings. In this case, even assuming Toyota Financial Services only learned of the CIRP in May 2023, the creditor failed to provide any explanation for its inability to detect the proceedings earlier. Public announcements are published in widely circulated newspapers and on the website of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. Financial creditors maintaining proper tracking systems would typically become aware of CIRP initiation shortly after the public announcement.
Implications for Creditors and Resolution Process
The Toyota Financial Services decision provides important guidance for creditors regarding their obligations in insolvency proceedings. Financial creditors must implement robust systems for monitoring their loan portfolios and detecting early signs of financial distress in borrowers. These systems should include regular review of publicly available information, including insolvency proceedings databases maintained by regulatory authorities. The expectation applies with particular force to institutional creditors who possess sophisticated risk management capabilities.
The decision also clarifies the consequences of failing to meet claim submission deadlines. While some flexibility exists for creditors who miss the initial deadline but file within the extended ninety-day period, claims filed years after the deadline will not be entertained, particularly where resolution plans have already been approved. The finality principle protects the interests of resolution applicants who bid for Corporate Debtors based on specific liability profiles. Creditors who fail to participate timely may find themselves excluded from the resolution process entirely, with potential recourse limited to challenging the resolution plan on other grounds.
For resolution professionals, the decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and rejecting belated claims that would disrupt the orderly progress of proceedings. Resolution professionals need not accept claims filed substantially beyond the extended deadline, even if the creditor asserts ignorance of the proceedings. The decision provides clear authority for resolution professionals to reject such claims without detailed inquiry into the reasons for delay, particularly where resolution plans have advanced to the approval stage.
The judgment has broader implications for the efficiency and predictability of insolvency resolution in India. By strictly enforcing claim submission deadlines, tribunals can ensure that CIRP proceedings conclude within the statutory timeframes contemplated by the Code. This predictability benefits all stakeholders, including creditors, resolution applicants, employees, and other parties affected by the insolvency. Resolution applicants can bid with greater confidence when they know that the liability profile will not change dramatically after plan approval due to the emergence of new creditors.
Regulatory Framework and Procedural Safeguards
The regulatory framework establishes multiple safeguards to ensure that creditors receive adequate notice of CIRP proceedings. Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations requires the Interim Resolution Professional to make a public announcement immediately upon appointment, defined as not later than three days from the appointment date. The public announcement must be published in one English and one regional language newspaper with wide circulation at the location of the registered office and principal office of the Corporate Debtor, and any other location where the Corporate Debtor conducts material business operations.
Additionally, the public announcement must be published on the website of the Corporate Debtor, if any, and on the website designated by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India for this purpose. These multiple publication requirements create numerous opportunities for creditors to become aware of CIRP initiation. The public announcement must specify the last date for submission of proofs of claim, which shall be fourteen days from the date of appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional. These provisions ensure that creditors receive both adequate notice and sufficient time to prepare and submit their claims.
The regulatory framework also contemplates communication with known creditors beyond public announcements. While public announcements serve as the primary notification mechanism, Resolution Professionals typically attempt to identify and directly contact known creditors based on the Corporate Debtor’s books and records. This practice provides an additional layer of protection for creditors, particularly those with substantial exposure to the Corporate Debtor. However, creditors cannot rely exclusively on direct communication and must monitor public announcements to protect their interests.
Conclusion
The NCLT’s decision in Toyota Financial Services India Ltd. v. Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain establishes that lack of awareness about CIRP initiation does not constitute sufficient ground for accepting claims filed substantially beyond statutory deadlines. The judgment balances the interests of individual creditors with the broader objectives of time-bound, orderly resolution of corporate insolvency, particularly in the context of disputes relating to belated claims in CIRP. While the regulatory framework provides reasonable extensions for creditors who miss initial deadlines, these extensions do not create an unlimited right to participate at any stage of proceedings.
Financial creditors must implement adequate monitoring systems to detect CIRP initiation and submit claims within prescribed timelines. The decision reinforces the principle that creditors bear primary responsibility for protecting their interests through active vigilance rather than passive reliance on others to notify them of developments. Resolution professionals have clear authority to reject belated claims that would disrupt advanced proceedings, particularly after approval of resolution plans by the Committee of Creditors. This approach protects the finality and predictability essential for effective insolvency resolution, benefiting all stakeholders in the long term.
References
[1] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. (2016). The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/TheInsolvencyandBankruptcyofIndia.pdf
[2] IBC Laws. (n.d.). Section 15 of IBC – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Public announcement of corporate insolvency resolution process. Retrieved from https://ibclaw.in/section-15-public-announcement-of-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-chapter-ii-corporate-insolvency-resolution-processcirp-part-ii-insolvency-resolution-and-liquidation-for-corporate-pe/
[3] CA2013.com. (n.d.). IBC Section 29-Preparation of information memorandum. Retrieved from https://ca2013.com/section-29-preparation-information-memorandum/
[4] TaxGuru. (2021). Submission of Claims under IBC. Retrieved from https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/submission-claims-ibc.html
[5] Mondaq. (2023). Acceptance Of Belated Claims: A Step Forward Or Backward? Retrieved from https://www.mondaq.com/india/insolvencybankruptcy/1297064/acceptance-of-belated-claims-a-step-forward-or-backward-
[6] IBC Laws. (n.d.). Analysis of Time Limit under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for completion of CIRP. Retrieved from https://ibclaw.in/analysis-on-time-limit-under-section-12-of-the-code-for-completion-of-cirp/
[7] India Law Journal. (2025). Finality in Insolvency Resolution: Supreme Court’s Stance on Belated Claims in CIRP Cases. Retrieved from https://www.indialaw.in/blog/civil/finality-insolvency-sc-belated-cirp/
[8] LiveLaw. (2023). NCLT Delhi: Unawareness About CIRP Is No Ground To File Claims At Belated Stage. Retrieved from https://www.livelaw.in/ibc-cases/nclt-delhi-unawareness-about-cirp-is-no-ground-to-file-claims-at-belated-stage-239088
[9] Vinod Kothari Consultants. (2024). Importance of Filing Timely Claims in IBC: A Guide for Government Departments. Retrieved from https://vinodkothari.com/2024/06/importance-of-filing-timely-claims-in-ibc-a-guide-for-government-departments/
