Union of India Vs Rolta India Limited (NCLT Delhi)
Summary: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by Union of India through the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) against the order dated 15.12.2025 of the NCLT, Mumbai Bench-I approving the resolution plan of Rolta India Limited under Sections 30(6) and 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The DoT was an Operational Creditor/Licensor of Rolta India Limited under ISP licence agreements dated 18.11.1998 and 30.04.2002, under which licence fees were payable on the basis of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR). Following defaults, demand notices were issued and challenged before the TDSAT, which by interim order dated 09.08.2018 stayed the impugned demand notices until the next date. After commencement of CIRP on 19.01.2023, the DoT filed a Form-B claim on 31.08.2023 for Rs. 469.09 Crore towards unpaid licence fees for FY 2005-06 and 2006-07, subject to upward revision for interest and penalty. The Resolution Professional subsequently categorised the claim as “not acceptable but contingent”. The DoT contended that the resolution plan provided only Rs. 10 lakhs towards government/statutory authorities despite the amounts claimed by the DoT and Income Tax Department, and challenged the treatment of its claim and distribution under the resolution plan. The NCLAT noted that the DoT had never challenged the Resolution Professional’s communication dated 25.09.2023 before the Adjudicating Authority. Instead, it pursued proceedings before the TDSAT seeking vacation/modification of the interim stay. The resolution plan was approved on 15.12.2025, after which the appeal was filed on 14.01.2026. The NCLAT further noted that the plan had already been successfully implemented on 02.02.2026 and the NCLT had closed the Company Petition on the same date. Relying upon Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors., Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. and the principle referred to from BNK Power Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Mr. Rajkumar Poddar & Ors., the Tribunal held that after approval and implementation of the resolution plan, the appellant could not raise issues concerning a claim which it had not challenged at the appropriate stage. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as without merits and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited [2021 SCC OnLine SC 313]
- Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. Vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors. [CA No. 3395/2020]
- Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 531
- BNK Power Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Mr. Rajkumar Poddar & Ors., Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 59/2022
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLT JUDGMENT/ORDER
The instant Appeal is preferred by the Appellant, Union of India through Department of Telecommunications (“DoT”), against the judgement and order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Ld. National Company Tribunal, Mumbai Bench – I in IA (IBC) (Plan) 65 of 2024 in CP(IB) NO. 530 of 2020 (“Impugned Order”) whereby the Resolution Plan dated 22.04.2024 read with Financial Proposal dated 22.04.2024 and Clarificatory Addendum dated 17.05.2024 submitted by Respondent No.3 in respect of Respondent No. I (“Corporate Debtor”) has been approved under Section 30(6) and 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
2. The Appellant is an Operational Creditor / Licensor of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was granted an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) license agreement no. 820-4/98/LR dated 18.11.1998 for establishing and operating internet services in Mumbai service area for a period of 5 years by the Appellant.
3. The Appellant executed a fresh ISP license agreement No. 820-04-02-LR on 30.04.2002. Under the terms of the license, the Corporate Debtor was mandated to pay license fees based on Adjusted Gross Revenue (“AGR”). The Corporate Debtor defaulted on these payments leading to the issuance of demand notices by the Appellant to Corporate Debtor which were challenged by Corporate Debtor before the Ld. Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi (“TDSAT”) in Telecom Petition No. 146 of 2018.
4. The Ld. TDSAT vide Order dated 09.08.2018 passed an interim Order directing “the impugned demand notices shall remain stayed till the next date”.
The CIRP against Corporate Debtor was admitted vide Order dated 19.01.2023 by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench-I in C.P. (IB) No. 530 of 2020.
5. Subsequently Appellant lodged its Claim in Form-B on 31.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 469.09/- Crore (provisional, subject to upward revision for interest and penalty) towards unpaid license fee for FY 2005-06 and 2006-07. It is argued the Respondent No.4 (“Resolution Professional”), however unilaterally categorized the entire claim as “not acceptable but contingent”. The sole premise for this rejection was an interim stay Order dated 09.08.2018 granted by the Ld. TDSAT which had merely stayed the recovery of the demand notices.
6. The Ld. NCLT vide Order dated 15.12.2025 approved the resolution plan submitted by Respondent No. 2 which it is alleged had resulted in grave miscarriage of justice as out of a total sum of Rs. 5,94,995.93/- Lakhs towards statutory dues as owed by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant only a meagre sum of Rs. 10 lakhs have been provided for and approved in the resolution plan.
7. It is argued the Impugned Order records an allocation of only Rs. 10 Lakhs for government and statutory authorities, out of a total resolution plan of Rs. 900 Crore, whereas the admitted claims of the DoT and Income Tax Department are to the aggregate Rs. 17,919.74/- lakhs, including substantial claims of the DoT and Income Tax Department. Secured financial creditors receive about Rs. 808.55 Crore and unsecured financial creditors receive Rs. 64.20 crore, but government/ statutory creditors as a class, receive a fraction of their admitted dues without any cogent examination of compliances with Section 30(2)(b) and the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of IBC.
8. It was argued t he Appellant had diligently pursued its remedies including filing an M.A. No. 152 of 2024 before the Ld. TDSAT to vacate the stay to facilitate the admission of the claim, but the said Ld. Tribunal disposed of the application vide Order dated 27.05.2024 without vacating the stay and listed the matter for final hearing. The Resolution Professional seized upon this procedural interim protection to deny the Appellant, its legitimate claim of statutory dues as an Operational Creditor.
9. The Present Appeal is therefore, filed to set aside the Impugned Order to an extent it extinguishes the statutory dues of the Appellant and to direct that the ISP license cannot be transferred to the Successful Resolution Applicant unless the statutory liabilities are discharged in full or treated in accordance with the status of a Secured Creditor.
10. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India argued even if the claim of the appellant is disputed it still falls under Section 3(6) of the IBC viz under definition of Claim. It is further submitted fair and equitable distribution needs to be given to each creditor per Section 30 of the IBC. Thus in this appeal the Union of India is challenging an unfair treatment given to it in admission of its claim(s) as well as in its disbursement under the waterfall mechanism. It is submitted despite the claim being admitted to an extent of Rs.179 crores approximately, only an amount of Rs.10 lakh is given towards government dues. It is submitted the amount of Rs.459 crores due to the Department of Telecommunication is completely ignored. Heard.
10. We have perused the impugned order. There is no denial to the fact the appellant was an operational creditor and on 31st August, 2023 had filed a cumulative claim (Form B) of an amount of Rs.469.09 crores with the Resolution Professional. On 25.09.2023 the Resolution Professional vide his email had intimated the appellant its claim of Rs.469.09 crores have been categorized as not acceptable but contingent claim. Admittedly the appellant never challenged the decision of the Resolution Professional nor filed any application before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for setting aside of such decision and for increase of its claim. Rather it went on to pursue its lis before the Ld. TDSAT seeking vacation/modification of its interim stay order dated 09.09.2018 to ensure its claim be considered by the Resolution Professional but no relief was granted by the Ld. TDSAT. Thereafter, on 15.12.2025 the Ld. NCLT pronounced the impugned order approving the resolution plan given by M/s Ashdan Properties Pvt Ltd. It was only thereafter on 14.01.2026 the present appeal was filed.
11. Admittedly on 02.02.2026 the Plan has been successfully implemented and vide order dated 02.02.2026 the Ld. NCLT Mumbai had closed the Company Petition. The relevant portion of such order is as under:
“vii. The Applicant shall forward all records relating to the conduct of the CIRP and the Resolution Plan to the IBBI along with copy of this Order for information.”
12. Thus we find the appellant had never challenged the rejection of its claim by the Resolution Professional on 25.09.2023 and even failed to file an appeal against such communication before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, hence now after the plan is approved and being fully implemented, the appellant cannot raise old issues.
13. In BNK Power Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs Mr. Rajkumar Poddar & Ors Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No.59/2022 this Tribunal held:-
“19. It is thus clear that after the RP had finally informed the Appellant vide email dated 02.09.2020 that only an amount of Rs.1,13,63,918/- was admitted, the Appellant did not take any further action about either preferring an appeal before the Adjudicating Authority on the matter of admission of reduced claim, nor took up the matter with the RP, and it is therefore logical and safe to presume that he accepted the admission of his claim at Rs.1,13,63,918/-. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that once the resolution plan has been approved vide the Impugned Order the issue of any claim could not be agitated or brought up at this late stage. While holding this, we are guided by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 313], wherein it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once a resolution plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority, no further claims can be considered. We also follow the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaypee Kingston Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. (Supra) that once the Appellant did not challenge the admission of a reduced amount against the submitted claim, the same cannot be challenged after approval of the resolution plan.
14. In fact, it is a matter of record as found in Order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority that the plan has stood implemented. Thus, the resolution process having attained finality and the plan having been acted upon, interference to the Order dated 15.12.2025 at this stage, would be inappropriate, and that the sanctity of an approved and implemented resolution plan is not to be disturbed on claims that were not timeously agitated. This is especially considering the settled principle of law that the successful resolution applicant cannot be faced with any fresh claims in the nature of hydra pops, especially after the approval of the resolution plan by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Judgment dated 15.11.2019 in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., reported at (2020) 8 SCC 531.
15. Thus we see no reason to entertain this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed as without merits. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
