An agreement was entered into during August, 2006 between the ZY Infrastructures Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ZY Infra') and WV Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporate De

An agreement was entered into during August, 2006 between the ZY Infrastructures Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ZY Infra') and WV Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporate Debtor'), for development of land licensed with the ZY Infra admeasuring 8 acres into a residential group housing complex at Bengaluru. However, the ZY infra, being aggrieved by the Corporate Debtor's alleged misconduct in advertising the project under its own name and without mentioning the name of the ZY Infra, sought reference to arbitration during May, 2011. The arbitral proceedings culminated in an award dated 1st August, 2016 in favour of the ZY Infra. In addition to awarding a monetary claim, the award inter alia directed the Corporate Debtor to apply to the authorities for transfer of the requisite licenses to the ZY Infra. Aggrieved by the award, the Corporate Debtor filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act') during September, 2016. On the same date, the ZY Infra filed execution proceedings in respect of the said award. These execution proceedings were ultimately adjourned sine die on 22nd December, 2017 on account of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. These proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act culminated in the award being upheld by Special Commercial Court with some modifications. Corporate Debtor who has filed an appeal against the same under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is stated to be pending. Meanwhile, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') was initiated against the Corporate Debtor in respect of three real estate projects by certain homebuyers who had invested in these projects. This application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IBC') was admitted on 27th March, 2019 by the Adjudicating Authority. On the same date, an Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') was appointed. The IRP issued a public announcement inviting claims from creditors, in accordance with Section 15 of the IBC read with Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IBBI Regulations') on 30th March, 2019. After receipt of the claims, the IRP constituted the Committee of Creditors ('COC') on 6th November, 2019 and circulated the draft information memorandum and invited expressions of interest from prospective resolution applicants. Five such applications were received. Thereafter, the IRP was replaced by Resolution Professional (RP) by the COC on 18th June, 2020. The resolution plan as submitted by TSK Residential Welfare Association was approved by the COC by a majority vote of 80.74% on 11th July, 2020. This plan was then submitted by RP to the Adjudicating Authority for approval under Section 31 of the IBC on 8th September, 2020. ZY Infra sent an email on 19th August, 2020 to RP highlighting their pending claim of ₹35 Crores and odd against the Corporate Debtor arising from the arbitral award dated 1st August, 2016, confirmed with certain modifications in the proceedings under Section 34 of the said Act. However, RP rejected this claim on 25th August, 2020 on the ground that the time period for submitting the claim was within 90 days of initiation of CIRP and the applicant was 287 days late. A Resolution plan had already been passed by the COC. ZY Infra filed an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC. During the pendency of RP's application for approval of the plan before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking directions to RP that the ZY Infra's claim may be considered on merits. This relief was granted to the ZY Infra by the Adjudicating Authority vide an order dated 3rd November, 2020 predicated on the following grounds: (a) RP could not have summarily rejected ZY Infra's claim, as this claim would have appeared in the Corporate Debtor's books of accounts; (b) In case such books of accounts were not available, RP had a duty to obtain them and verify the financial position; and (c) as such announcement was made through public newspapers, it was likely that the appellant missed out on the same. RP thereafter preferred an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('NCLAT') against the Adjudicating Authority's order. The NCLAT, vide the impugned order dated 30th July, 2021, did not favour the view adopted by the Adjudicating Authority. Their reasoning was as follows: (i) RP had effectuated proper service for inviting claims in accordance with Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations which only mandates a pronouncement through newspapers and not through personal service—an aspect that was not disputed by the appellant; (ii) The appellant failed to show that it filed its claim as soon as it came to know of the initiation of the CIRP. (iii) RP even filed an application under Section 19 of the IBC before the Adjudicating Authority seeking that a direction be issued to the ex-management to provide all records. Although nothing came of this attempt, it reflected his sincere efforts; (iv) Regulations 12 and 13 of the IBBI Regulations obliged the RP to accept claims filed within the extended period of 90 days of the commencement of CIRP. (v) The resolution plan, as approved by the COC, would be jeopardised if new claims were entertained. Consequent to the decision of the NCLAT, ZY Infra approached Supreme Court of India for the final resolution. State with reasons and applicable case law, whether the ZY Infra will succeed in its appeal?