The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has reaffirmed that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, and subsequent attempts to reopen the process through speculative or vexatious applications will be met with costs. This judgment underscores the finality of approved resolution plans and the tribunal’s intolerance for abuse of process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), initiated on 24.02.2020. The Appellant, Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad, was a suspended director of the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent, Gaurav Ashok Adukia, was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and later as Resolution Professional (RP). ICICI Bank, the sole financial creditor, filed a Section 7 petition, which was admitted. The Appellant challenged the admission order in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 376 of 2020, which was dismissed on 23.07.2020.
Key Facts
- The Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted on 29.07.2020, with ICICI Bank as the sole member.
- The admitted claim of ICICI Bank was Rs. 10.75 crores.
- Expression of Interest (EoI) was issued on 24.09.2020 and later modified.
- Three resolution plans were received and evaluated by the CoC.
- Voting concluded on 15.07.2021, with M/s Kamini Metalliks Pvt. Ltd.’s plan receiving 100% vote share.
- The Resolution Plan was filed before the Adjudicating Authority on 29.07.2021 (IA No. 1719 of 2021).
- The Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan on 12.09.2022.
- The Resolution Plan was implemented.
- The Appellant did not challenge the approval order dated 12.09.2022.
- On 08.05.2024, the Appellant filed IA No. 3068 of 2024 seeking to set aside the approved Resolution Plan.
- On 31.08.2025, the Appellant filed IA No. 4174 of 2025, seeking similar reliefs with elaborated grounds.
- The RP filed a reply affidavit on 24.09.2025 to IA No. 4174 of 2025.
- On 10.10.2025, the Appellant filed IA No. 4604 of 2025 alleging perjury by the RP in the reply affidavit.
- The Adjudicating Authority dismissed IA No. 4604 of 2025 on 13.02.2026, imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Appellant payable to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
Procedural History
- 24.02.2020: CIRP initiated against Corporate Debtor.
- 23.07.2020: Appellant’s appeal against admission order dismissed.
- 29.07.2020: CoC constituted; IRP became RP.
- 15.07.2021: CoC approved Resolution Plan with 100% vote share.
- 29.07.2021: RP filed IA No. 1719 of 2021 seeking approval of Resolution Plan.
- 12.09.2022: Adjudicating Authority approved Resolution Plan.
- 08.05.2024: Appellant filed IA No. 3068 of 2024 seeking to set aside Resolution Plan.
- 31.08.2025: Appellant filed IA No. 4174 of 2025 with similar reliefs.
- 24.09.2025: RP filed reply affidavit to IA No. 4174 of 2025.
- 10.10.2025: Appellant filed IA No. 4604 of 2025 alleging perjury.
- 13.02.2026: Adjudicating Authority dismissed IA No. 4604 of 2025 and imposed cost of Rs. 25,000.
- 17.04.2026: NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Relief Sought
The Appellant sought:
- Initiation of perjury proceedings against the RP under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Declaration that the RP committed offences under Sections 227, 229, 233, 236, 237, and 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly IPC Sections 191, 193, 196, 199, 200, 209).
- Imposition of penalty up to Rs. 2 crores under Section 235A of the IBC.
- Exemplary costs under Rule 149 of NCLT Rules.
- Directions to initiate contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant (Suspended Director): Alleged that the RP made false, misleading, and dishonest statements in his reply affidavit dated 24.09.2025 to conceal misconduct during CIRP, including disproportionate fees and suppression of material facts. Argued that perjury was established under BNSS and IBC.
Respondent (RP): Contended that the affidavit merely presented his version of facts in defense of lawful actions taken during CIRP. Denied any malafide intent or deliberate falsehood.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the filing of a perjury application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against a Resolution Professional for statements made in a reply affidavit challenging an already approved and implemented Resolution Plan constitutes a frivolous abuse of process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Appellant relied on H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India and ABCD v. Union of India to argue that any deliberate falsehood before a tribunal, even post-approval, warrants perjury proceedings. He contended that the RP’s denial of alleged misconduct in fee structure and CIRP conduct amounted to suppression of material facts. He further invoked Section 235A of the IBC to seek maximum penalty and cited Perry Kansagra to argue that courts have a duty to punish conduct undermining insolvency proceedings.
For the Respondent
The Respondent argued that the reply affidavit was a legitimate defense of actions taken in good faith during CIRP. He emphasized that the Resolution Plan had been approved under Section 31 of the IBC and was binding on all stakeholders, including the Appellant. He submitted that the Appellant’s multiple applications were dilatory tactics to prolong litigation after the process had concluded, and that the allegations of perjury were speculative and lacked prima facie evidence of deliberate falsehood.
The Court's Analysis
The NCLAT began by affirming the binding nature of an approved Resolution Plan under Section 31(1) of the IBC, which explicitly states that such a plan binds the corporate debtor, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders. The Appellant, having failed to challenge the approval order dated 12.09.2022, was estopped from later seeking to set it aside. The Tribunal observed that the filing of IA No. 3068 of 2024, over one and a half years after approval, was an attempt to re-litigate a concluded matter.
"The statements made by the RP in his reply to IA/4174 are only to put forth his version of the case. We are unable to conclude that the statements made in the reply affidavit are made with malafide intent or deliberate attempt to mislead this Tribunal or to deceive this Tribunal to obtain any favourable order from this Tribunal."
The Court meticulously examined each paragraph of the RP’s reply affidavit and found no evidence of deliberate falsehood. It held that mere disagreement with the RP’s version of facts, even if inconsistent with the Appellant’s claims, does not constitute perjury. The Tribunal emphasized that perjury requires prima facie satisfaction of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, not mere suspicion or tactical litigation.
The Court further noted the Appellant’s conduct in filing IA No. 4174 of 2025 while IA No. 3068 of 2024 was still pending, and his insistence on hearing the newer application first, which the Tribunal found to be a clear attempt to delay proceedings. The imposition of cost under Rule 149 of NCLT Rules was deemed appropriate to deter such abuse of process.
The NCLAT also clarified that Section 235A of the IBC, which permits penalties against persons who obstruct CIRP, cannot be invoked against a Resolution Professional for defending his actions in a tribunal proceeding, absent proof of wilful obstruction or criminal intent.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s order dated 13.02.2026, which dismissed the perjury application (IA No. 4604 of 2025) and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Appellant to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The Court held that the Resolution Plan’s approval was final and binding, and that post-approval perjury allegations, absent clear evidence of deliberate falsehood, constitute frivolous litigation warranting cost imposition.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Post-Approval Challenges Are Barred Unless Grounds Are Exceptional
- Practitioners must recognize that Section 31 of the IBC creates finality; challenges to approved Resolution Plans must be filed within the statutory window.
- Applications filed more than a year after approval, without new evidence or fraud, are likely to be dismissed as frivolous.
- Any attempt to revive stale claims through collateral applications (e.g., perjury, contempt) will be viewed as abuse of process.
Perjury Applications Require High Threshold of Proof
- Allegations of perjury must demonstrate deliberate falsehood on a material fact, not mere contradiction or advocacy.
- Tribunals will not entertain perjury petitions based on speculative claims or tactical litigation.
- The burden lies on the applicant to show malafide intent and substantial deception - mere denial of allegations is insufficient.
Cost Imposition Is a Deterrent Against Dilatory Tactics
- Tribunals are empowered under Rule 149 of NCLT Rules to impose costs for vexatious litigation.
- Costs imposed on parties who file multiple, overlapping applications to delay proceedings are now a recognized tool to preserve the integrity of CIRP.
- Practitioners must advise clients that repeated, unsubstantiated applications risk financial penalties and adverse costs orders.
