# In the matter of Gitanjali Kapoor
Vs.
Anand Sonbhadra Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 621 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-09-19. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00209. The appeal challenges the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 19 Sept 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00209
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/gitanjali-kapoor-vs-anand-sonbhadra-company-appeal-0a39b5c7

## Summary

### Background

The appeal challenges the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, Court No. IV, in IA 372/2019 in CP (IB) No.-1059/ND/2018. The NCLT dismissed Application IA 372/2019 filed by the Appellant. The Resolution Professional (RP) sought clarifications and documents regarding the Appellant's claim for services provided to the Corporate Debtor. The RP argued that the Appellant delayed providing the necessary information, and the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The NCLT relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 'Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited' to support its decision.

## Facts

Gitanjali Kapoor, the Appellant, claimed to have provided legal and allied services to the Corporate Debtor, Shubhkamna Buildtech Private Limited, for a monthly fee of Rs. 2 Lakhs from 01.11.2016 to 01.11.2018 based on a Retainer Agreement dated 13.01.2017. The Corporate Debtor entered CIRP on 26.11.2018. The Appellant filed a claim with the IRP on 18.12.2018, and the IRP requested further details on 23.01.2019. An RP was appointed on 12.02.2019, and the Appellant provided information to the new RP on 11.03.2019. The RP sought further clarifications on 16.04.2019, which the Appellant provided on 12.07.2019, after a delay of three months. The Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC with 87.57% voting on 17.10.2019. The Appellant's Application was filed in September

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in dismissing the application filed by the Appellant …

**Ratio:** Once a Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC, no undecided claim can be accepted, as it

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that allowing undecided claims after the approval of the Resolution

…

**Interpretation:** This issue involves the interpretation of the IBC and the principle of finality

…

**Application:** In this case, the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC with a significant

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Anant Bijay…; Shreesha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Gitanjali…
- **Respondents:** Shubhkamna…; Anand Son…

## Timeline

- **2016-11-01 — Retainer Agreement…**: Retainer Agreement between Appellant and…
- **2017-01-13 — Retainer Agree…**: Retainer Agreement between…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(6) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/gitanjali-kapoor-vs-anand-sonbhadra-company-appeal-0a39b5c7