Allowed¶40

Reliance Capital Limited v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jan 2026IA/7067/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (OOCS), Gauri Godse J, order dated 19 January 2026 on IA No. 7067 of 2025 in Commercial Suit No. 21 of 2024: dismissal of suit qua defendant no.21 following approval of resolution plan by NCLT on 27-02-2024 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (cited as Section 31(1) and Section 30(1)); suit filed 11-09-2023 after moratorium order of 06-12-2021; plaintiff had not filed claim before NCLT; claims outside an approved resolution plan stand extinguished and no proceedings may be initiated or continued on them — Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657, followed; application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

What did the court decide?

Interim application allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’; suit dismissed against defendant no.21. ¶40

Reliance Capital Limited vs State of Maharashtra — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim application allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’; suit dismissed against defendant no.21.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed qua defendant no.21 on the ground that the resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was approved on 27th February 2024, extinguishing claims (including those of the plaintiff, who filed no claim before the NCLT) not forming part of the resolution plan.

¶22

Court's answer

On approval of a resolution plan under the IBC by the adjudicating authority, the claims provided in the resolution plan stand frozen and are binding on the corporate debtor, employees and other stakeholders.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

As held by the Apex Court (termed a well-settled legal principle), all claims stand extinguished on approval of the resolution plan, and no person is entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of a claim which is not part of the resolution plan.

¶37

Key takeaways

The plaintiff having admittedly not filed any claim before the NCLT, its claim, if any, against defendant no.21 stands extinguished in view of the resolution plan approved by NCLT on 27th February 2024.ratio¶37
Nothing survives against defendant no.21.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application No. 7067 of 2025 in Commercial Suit No. 21 of 2024, filed by defendant no.21 seeking dismissal of the suit qua it, on the ground that the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was approved on 27 February 2024 — recorded in the application as an order under Section 31(1) IBC and, in the body of the order, as approval under Section 30(1) IBC. The suit had been filed on 11 September 2023, after the moratorium order passed by the NCLT on 6 December 2021, and the plaintiff had not filed any claim before the NCLT. Following Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, (2021) 9 SCC 657, Gauri Godse J held that on approval of a resolution plan the claims provided therein stand frozen and bind the corporate debtor, employees and other stakeholders; all claims stand extinguished and no person may initiate or continue proceedings in respect of a claim not part of the plan. The plaintiff's claim against defendant no.21 thereby stood extinguished and nothing survived against defendant no.21. Interim application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); suit dismissed against defendant no.21.

2026:BHC-OS:1825

16-IA-7067-2025.docx

Swapnil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7067 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 21 OF 2024

¶6

Reliance Capital Limited. ….Applicant/Plaintiff

¶7

VS.

¶8

State Of Maharashtra. …..Defendant

¶9

Mr. Rohan Savant a/w. Mr. Jain and Mr. Vinayak Siraskar i/b. M/s. Kiran Jain & Co. for the plaintiffs.

¶10

Mr. Aayush Kothari (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Avdhoot Prabhu i/b. Lex Services for the applicant in IA/7067/2025 and for defendant no.21.

¶11

Mr. Simil Purohit, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shrikant Seegarla a/w. Ms. Shraddha Achliya i/b. RMG Law Associates for defendant nos. 4 to 6.

¶12

Mr. Himanshu B. Takke, AGP for defendant no.1 – State of Maharashtra.

¶13

Mr. Yashesh Kamdar a/w. Ms. Nidhi Singh, Mr. Brian Noronha and Ms. Amisha Upadhyay i/b. India Law LLP for Defendant nos. 11, 12 and 15.

¶14

Mr. Pravin Kumar Samdani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Aditya Shiralkar a/w. Ms. Disha Shetty and Ms. Jyoti Tated i/b. M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for defendant No. 19 and for applicant in IA/1925/2025.

¶15

Ms. Priyanka Fadia (through V.C.) and Mr. Shashank Fadia for defendant nos. 14, 16, 17 and 19 in IA/7746/2025 and IA/861/2024.

¶16

1/4

¶17

16-IA-7067-2025.docx

¶18

Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar for defendant no.2 – AGRC. Mr. Dushyant Purekar for defendant Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 22. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for applicant in IA/6241/2025 and for defendant no.3 (SRA).

¶19

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 19^th JANUARY 2026

¶20

ORDER :

¶21

This application is filed by defendant no. 21 for

¶22

dismissal of the suit qua defendant no.21, on the ground that the resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is approved on 27^th February 2024.

¶23

Learned counsel for the defendant no.21 submits that the suit was filed on 11^th September 2023, after the moratorium order was passed on 6^th December 2021 by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). He relies upon the order passed under Section 31 (1) of the IBC approving the resolution plan.

¶24

Learned counsel for the defendant no.21 submits that

¶25

in view of the approval of the resolution plan, all the claims provided in the resolution plan and all other claims stand

¶26

2/4

¶27

16-IA-7067-2025.docx

¶28

extinguished, and no person would be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan. To support his submissions, learned counsel for the defendant no.21 relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Through the Authorised Signatory Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Through The Director and Ors.¹ He further submits that the plaintiff had not filed any claim before the NCLT and thus, the plaintiff would not entitled to continue the suit qua defendant no.21. He therefore, submits that in view of well-settled legal principles, the application be allowed and the suit be dismissed qua defendant no.21.

¶29

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that though the plaintiff had not filed any claim before the NCLT, the claim of the plaintiff would be subject to the provisions of the approved resolution plan.

¶30

The Apex Court in the decision of Ghanshyam Mishra

¶31

and Sons Private Limited has clarified the legal position

¶32

that after a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating

¶33

1 (2021) 9 SCC 657

¶34

3/4

¶35

16-IA-7067-2025.docx

¶36

authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the IBC. The claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor, employees, etc and other stakeholders. It is well-settled legal principle as

¶37

held by the Apex Court that all the claims would stand extinguished on approval of the resolution plan and no person would be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of a claim which is not part of the resolution plan. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not filed any claim before the NCLT. Hence, in view of the well-settled legal principles, claim, if any, of the plaintiff against defendant no.21 stands extinguished in view of the resolution plan approved by NCLT on 27^th February 2024, under Section 30 (1) of the IBC. Hence, nothing survives against defendant no. 21.

¶38

The interim application is therefore allowed in terms of

¶39

prayer clause ‘a’.

¶40

The suit is dismissed against defendant no.21.

¶41

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶42

4/4

Reliance Capital Limited v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Capital Limited v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anchor Point Developers Private Limited 847/2024 vs Om Samruddhi Sites Private Limited

Jagdish Harihar Shetty vs Anand Govind Karande and Smt Bakula Anand Karande Since Deceased Thr LRs

Vrushali Uday Salvi and Anr. vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited vs Ozone Infra Con Private Limited

Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority vs K S Chamankar Enterprises

Axis Trustee Services Limited vs M.T. Prem Mala Imo No. 9209972