In the case where a claim by the Revenue authority was not lodged before Resolution Professional after issuance of Public notices under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) before approval of the Resolution plan, the Supreme Court of India has held that the claim which is not part of the Resolution Plan, does not survive. A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Ravindra Bhat has observed that on the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive. In the present case, the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by respondent no. 2 ( Office of the Commissioner of Customs) after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC. The Bench was considering the question as to whether the claim of the present respondent which was admittedly not lodged before the Resolution Professional after issuance of public notices could be considered at this stage. The Bench noted that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors, where it was held that once a resolution plan is approved, no creditor can take steps to recover claims which are not part of the resolution plan. "Admittedly, the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by the respondent no. 2 after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC. As such, on the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive", the Bench observed. The Bench therefore allowed the appeals filed challenging Karnataka High Court's judgment and order dated 20th January, 2012. Through the impugned order the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd seeking direction that, the Notification dated 13th June, 2002 was not applicable to the imported goods consisting of 1647.414 metric tonnes of crude palmolein covered under the Bill of Entry for Home Consumption dated 12th June, 2002. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Standard Chartered Bank had filed proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai in respect of the present appellant under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 The application of the Standard Chartered Bank under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority on 15th December, 2017. After the procedure, as required under the various provisions of the IBC was completed, an application under Section 30 (6) of the IBC was filed by the Resolution Professional for the grant of approval of the Resolution Plan of the successful Resolution Applicant. Through order dated 24th July, 2019 the application of the Resolution Professional for the grant of approval of the Resolution Plan of the successful Resolution Applicant came to be allowed and the management of the appellant came to be vested in the successful Resolution Applicant. The appellant argued that while a claim was lodged by the respondent before the Resolution Professional in respect of one of their demands, no claim was lodged for the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings. Therefore the respondents are now not entitled to claim any amount, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan. The respondent no. 2 (the Commissioner of Customs) on the contrary argued that no notice was issued to the Authority at Mangalore and there was certain confusion as to whether the operational debt as defined under Section 5(21) of the IBC would cover the claim of the respondent no. 2/Revenue. According to the Respondents, in view of said confusion, there is a possibility that their office might not have lodged the claim with respect to the present proceedings. Senior Advocate Parag Tripathi appeared for the appellant. Advocate Nisha Bagchi appeared for the 2nd respondent. "Admittedly, the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by the respondent no. 2 after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC. As such, on the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive", the Bench observed. The Bench therefore allowed the appeals filed challenging Karnataka High Court's judgment and order dated 20th January, 2012. Through the impugned order the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd seeking direction that, the Notification dated 13th June, 2002 was not applicable to the imported goods consisting of 1647.414 metric tonnes of crude palmolein covered under the Bill of Entry for Home Consumption dated 12th June, 2002. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Standard Chartered Bank had filed proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai in respect of the present appellant under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 The application of the Standard Chartered Bank under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority on 15th December, 2017. After the procedure, as required under the various provisions of the IBC was completed, an application under Section 30 (6) of the IBC was filed by the Resolution Professional for the grant of approval of the Resolution Plan of the successful Resolution Applicant. Through order dated 24th July, 2019 the application of the Resolution Professional for the grant of approval of the Resolution Plan of the successful Resolution Applicant came to be allowed and the management of the appellant came to be vested in the successful Resolution Applicant. The appellant argued that while a claim was lodged by the respondent before the Resolution Professional in respect of one of their demands, no claim was lodged for the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings. Therefore the respondents are now not entitled to claim any amount, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan. The respondent no. 2 (the Commissioner of Customs) on the contrary argued that no notice was issued to the Authority at Mangalore and there was certain confusion as to whether the operational debt as defined under Section 5(21) of the IBC would cover the claim of the respondent no. 2/Revenue. According to the Respondents, in view of said confusion, there is a possibility that their office might not have lodged the claim with respect to the present proceedings. Senior Advocate Parag Tripathi appeared for the appellant. Advocate Nisha Bagchi appeared for the 2nd respondent. Case Title: M/S. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd v Union of India & Ors (CA 447,448/ 2013) Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 207