NCLT Chandigarh Rejects Omkara ARC’s ₹387 Cr Claim Filed 1267 Days Late, Upholds CIRP Finality

March 10, 2026 : The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an application filed by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. seeking admission of its claim as a secured financial creditor in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Vikas WSP Ltd., holding that an inordinate delay of 1267 days in filing the claim is fatal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Bench comprising Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh upheld the decision of the Resolution Professional (RP) rejecting the claim, emphasizing that entertaining such a belated claim after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) would unsettle settled commercial decisions and defeat the time-bound framework of the Code.

The application was filed under Section 60(5) of the Code challenging the RP’s decision dated 13 August 2025 rejecting Omkara ARC’s claim submitted in Form-C on 6 August 2025. The applicant had sought condonation of delay, setting aside of the rejection, and recognition as a secured financial creditor based on an assignment of debt from the Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund (SASF) executed on 31 August 2024.

Background and Timeline
The Tribunal noted that CIRP against Vikas WSP Ltd. commenced on 2 February 2022 pursuant to a Section 7 petition filed by Bank of India. A public announcement was issued on 4 February 2022, fixing 16 February 2022 as the last date for submission of claims. The CoC approved the resolution plan on 25 August 2022, and approval under Section 31 remains pending before the Tribunal.

Despite this, Omkara ARC filed its claim only on 6 August 2025, well beyond both the original and extended timelines prescribed under Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations.

Applicant’s Case
Omkara ARC argued that it stepped into the shoes of the original lender after acquiring the debt from SASF and became aware of the CIRP only in July 2025 during proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). It claimed that ₹387.85 crore remained outstanding as on the insolvency commencement date and contended that delay should be condoned in the interest of justice.

It further argued that its status as a secured creditor should be recognized and relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Limited to contend that delay alone should not defeat substantive rights.

RP’s Objections
The Resolution Professional opposed the plea, arguing that the claim was filed 1267 days late and after CoC approval of the resolution plan. It was submitted that allowing such claims would reopen the CIRP, disrupt the resolution framework, and undermine the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

Tribunal’s Findings
The Tribunal held that Regulation 12 mandates strict adherence to timelines for submission of claims and that even the extended period of 90 days had long expired. It observed that:

• The claim was filed at a highly advanced stage of CIRP, after CoC approval of the resolution plan.
• Entertaining such a claim would “unsettle the commercial decision” of the CoC.
• The Code’s objective of time-bound resolution would be defeated if belated claims were allowed.

The Bench relied on precedents including RPS Infrastructure v. Mukul Kumar, reaffirming that no fresh or belated claims can be entertained after approval of a resolution plan by the CoC.

Rejecting reliance on Rainbow Papers, the Tribunal clarified that the judgment dealt with secured creditor status in liquidation and does not override mandatory timelines under the CIRP framework.

On RP’s Duties and Books of Account
The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the RP should have independently collated the claim from the corporate debtor’s books or MCA records. It held that:

• The Code places the burden on creditors to file claims pursuant to public announcement.
• Mere reflection of liability in records does not substitute formal claim submission.
• Allowing such claims would disturb parity among creditors and reopen distribution under the resolution plan.

Additional Observations
The Bench noted that recovery proceedings had earlier resulted in substantial payments and even a finding of satisfaction of decree by the Recovery Officer in 2018, though under challenge. It also observed that due diligence ought to have been conducted before assignment of the debt.

Holding the delay substantial and unexplained, the Tribunal concluded that admitting the claim would jeopardize finality and effectively reset the CIRP.

Conclusion
The NCLT dismissed the application, affirming that strict adherence to timelines is central to the insolvency framework and that belated claims cannot be permitted once the resolution process has substantially progressed.