Penalty Imposed By SEBI After Commencement Of Insolvency Cannot Be Admitted As Claim During CIRP: NCLT Mumbai

The CIRP of the corporate debtor (Medybiz Private Limited) was going on, and a moratorium was in effect. The last date of filing the claim was 22.08.2024; however, on 22.08.2024, SEBI imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 Cr. on the corporate debtor.

The resolution professional neither paid the penalty nor preferred an appeal against the imposition of the penalty. After that, SEBI filed its claim, which was rejected by the resolution professional. The present appeal was preferred by the SEBI against the rejection of its claim by the RP.

Contention of the Parties

The applicant relied on the ruling of Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [2022 SCC Online SC 1101], to contend that it can take steps during the moratorium to determine the tax, interest, fines, or any penalty that is due.

Per contra, the respondent argued that the order of the SEBI is void ab initio. It contended that during the imposition of the moratorium, no proceedings can either be initiated or be continued against the corporate debtor that culminate in a financial liability or penal consequence.

Observations of the NCLT

The NCLT observed that as per Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, either RP of IRP, as the case may be, shall verify every claim as on the insolvency commencement date, within seven days from the last date of the receipt of the claims.

The bench discussed that the belated filing of the claims is recognized only if the claim was in existence on the insolvency commencement date. Therefore, any assessment/determination of tax interest, fines, or any penalty occurring after the commencement of CIRP will not be admitted, irrespective of the fact whether it was initiated beforehand or pertains to a period prior to the insolvency commencement date.

Accordingly, in the present case, the penalty was imposed post commencement of CIRP; thus, it will not affect the ongoing process.

“As a result, we are of the considered view that assessment/determination of tax, interest, fines, or any penalty by any authority after commencement of the insolvency resolution process will not have a bearing on the resolution process already initiated under the Code,” the bench observed.

With the above observations, the application was rejected.

Case Name: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. IPE-NPV Insolvency Professionals Private Limited

Case No.: I.A. No. 1784 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 116/MB/2024

Coram: Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Member-Technical) and Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Member-Judicial),

For Applicant: Sr. Adv. Shiraz Rustom Jee, Adv. Nishit Dhruva, Adv. Khusbhu Chajjed, Adv. Niyati Merchant & Adv. Khushbu Trivedi

For Respondent: Adv. Mily Ghoshal with Adv. Shweta Thanekar

Order Date: 14.10.2025