Tribunal Rules Provisional Acceptance of Claims Does Not Amount to Final Admission; Approved Resolution Plan Cannot be Modified to Include Late Claims
In a significant ruling on September 17, 2026, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench, dismissed applications filed by two homebuyers, Nazeema Cholayil and Nawfal, seeking restoration and admission of their claims against M/s Nucleus Premium Properties Private Limited during the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the company. The bench, comprising Mr. Vinay Goel (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ravichandran Ramasamy (Technical Member), emphasized the legal principle that provisional acceptance of claims by the Resolution Professional (RP) does not constitute final admission and that claims not admitted during CIRP cannot be revived after approval of the Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The applicants, both homebuyers, had entered into agreements for purchase of residential units in two different projects developed by the Corporate Debtor. They submitted claims during the CIRP, supported by agreements and payments made, which they contended were admitted and reflected in the Information Memorandum prepared by the RP. However, these claims were later rejected by the RP via communication dated March 12, 2024, on the ground that the CIRP had concluded following approval of the Resolution Plan on February 9, 2024.
The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence and found that the emails relied upon by the applicants only indicated "provisional acceptance" of claims, subject to verification and reconciliation with the Corporate Debtor's accounts. The final Information Memorandum, which formed the basis for approval of the Resolution Plan, did not admit their claims but listed them as rejected or not admitted. The bench underscored that under Section 25(2)(e) of the IBC and Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations, the RP is mandated to verify claims and maintain an updated list, including the amounts admitted, and that provisional acceptance cannot be treated as final admission.
The Tribunal drew upon the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020), which held that a successful resolution applicant cannot be confronted with undisclosed or undecided claims after approval of the Resolution Plan. The bench held that permitting the applicants to introduce or revive claims after the Resolution Plan's approval would undermine the time-bound nature of insolvency resolution and unsettle the finality of the plan.
The Tribunal also noted that the applicants failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence, such as bank statements, to prove payments to the Corporate Debtor. Moreover, the applicants did not raise objections regarding their claims at the relevant stage of the CIRP, precluding reopening of concluded proceedings under Section 60(5) of the IBC.
Interestingly, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) expressed willingness to accommodate the applicants if they pay the remaining construction cost as on the date of approval of the Resolution Plan. The NCLT allowed the parties to negotiate amicably outside the court, binding the SRA by their stated intent. However, the Tribunal clarified that such negotiation is outside the ambit of the IBC adjudicatory process and does not affect the Tribunal's order.
In conclusion, the NCLT Kochi Bench dismissed the applications, affirming that the CIRP process has a strict timeline and procedural rigor that must be respected to ensure successful resolution and creditor confidence. The ruling reinforces the binding effect of an approved Resolution Plan and clarifies that provisional acceptance of claims during CIRP does not guarantee ultimate admission or benefit under the plan.
Bottom Line:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Homebuyers' claims rejected during CIRP process - Provisional acceptance of claims does not equate to final admission - Once Resolution Plan approved, claims not finally admitted cannot be revisited.
Statutory provision(s):
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 25(2)(e), Section 31, Section 60(5); Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 Regulation 13; National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 Rule 11.
Nazeema Cholayil v. K.P. Dileep, (NCLT)(Kochi Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981131
