NCLT Mumbai Rejects Indo Global Employees' Claims Filed 18 Months Late, Says Stakeholders Must Be Vigilant

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently stressed that stakeholders must act within statutory timelines during a corporate insolvency resolution process, dismissing six applications filed by former employees of Indo Global Soft Solutions and Technologies Private Limited after finding that their claims had been submitted 18 months after the last date prescribed for filing claims under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

A Bench of Judicial Member K R Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan stressed the need for creditors to be vigilant under the Code, stating, “Every stakeholder is required to be vigilant in asserting their rights within the timeframe as provided by or under the IBC.”

Rejecting the employees' argument that they were unaware of the CIRP, the tribunal said that they could not claim ignorance when their HR representative had already escalated their grievances to the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI, the professional body that oversees and regulates insolvency professionals, noting that “having been fully aware of the consequences of the CIRP of the CD, they cannot now take a plea that they are ignorant employees”

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar (2023) , the tribunal added that public announcement of insolvency would be considered deemed knowledge on the stakeholders. 

The tribunal further quoted the court's warning that allowing late claims would make the CIRP “an endless process” and lead to reopening issues as other similar persons may jump onto the bandwagon.

According to the tribunal, Indo Global's CIRP commenced on April 12, 2022 and a public announcement on April 22, 2022 fixed May 4, 2022 as the last date for submitting claims. The employees' claims were forwarded only on October 25, 2023 by the company's HR representative, well after the Committee of Creditors had approved the first resolution plan on August 30, 2023.

The applications before the tribunal were then filed between August and September 2025, after the CoC approved a second resolution plan on July 21, 2025 and after the plan approval application had already been reserved for orders on August 25, 2025 .

The employees argued that they were small-time workers unfamiliar with insolvency procedures and had been unable to approach earlier due to financial and health distress. They sought admission of unpaid salary, PF, TDS, professional tax and full-and-final settlements. The Resolution Professional opposed the applications, contending that the claims were unsupported by documents, related in part to periods after cessation of employment, and were filed only to obstruct final approval of the resolution plan, which had already undergone two rounds of CoC consideration and final hearings before the tribunal .

The tribunal found that the applications were filed after the CoC had the occasion to approve the plans twice and concluded that the former employees cannot be allowed to put a spoke in the wheels of the CIRP of the CD with their belated claims.

It held that allowing them would be contrary to the time bound nature of the insolvency process and dismissed all six applications as unmaintainable .

Click Here To Read/Download Order