March 10, 2026 : The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi has upheld the rejection of a homebuyer’s delayed claim submitted shortly before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting to vote on a resolution plan, ruling that such claims cannot be entertained if filed within seven days of the meeting under the applicable insolvency regulations.
A Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Technical Member Barun Mitra dismissed an appeal filed by homebuyer Suman Chopra challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench, which had refused to admit her claim of ₹10.30 lakh in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
The corporate debtor was admitted into CIRP on 27 February 2023, and the Resolution Professional issued a public announcement on 7 July 2023 inviting claims from creditors. However, the appellant filed her claim in Form CA only on 15 March 2024, nearly eight months later and just four days before the CoC meeting scheduled for 19 March 2024 to vote on the resolution plan.
The Resolution Professional declined to verify and place the claim before the CoC, stating that Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C) of the Insolvency Resolution Process Regulations allow verification of belated claims only if they are submitted up to seven days prior to the CoC meeting for voting on the resolution plan. Since the claim was filed within this restricted period, the Resolution Professional held that it could not be considered.
Aggrieved by this refusal, the appellant approached the NCLT seeking condonation of delay and directions to admit her claim of ₹10,30,258. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, holding that the claim was filed in violation of the timelines prescribed under the CIRP Regulations.
Before the appellate tribunal, the appellant argued that the liability underlying her claim was reflected in the records of the corporate debtor and therefore should not have been rejected merely on procedural grounds. It was also contended that the Resolution Professional failed to comply with Regulation 6A, which requires individual communication to creditors whose details are available in the corporate debtor’s books of accounts.
The appellant further relied on earlier NCLAT decisions, including Rahul Jain v. Nilesh Sharma and Sonia Kapoor v. Arunava Sikdar, where belated claims were permitted to be included in the resolution plan when the liability was recorded in the corporate debtor’s accounts.
Opposing the appeal, the Resolution Professional submitted that the claim was filed about 245 days after the public announcement and less than seven days before the CoC meeting scheduled to vote on the resolution plan. It was argued that the resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC with more than 99 percent voting share and entertaining such claims at this stage would disrupt the resolution process.
After examining the record, the tribunal observed that once a public announcement inviting claims is issued, creditors are deemed to have knowledge of the insolvency proceedings and the prescribed timelines. The Bench noted that the appellant had failed to provide any credible explanation for the delay in filing the claim and had not acted with due diligence in pursuing her claim within the stipulated time.
The tribunal further held that Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C) clearly permit verification and collation of belated claims only if they are submitted up to seven days before the CoC meeting for voting on the resolution plan. Since the appellant filed her claim merely four days before the meeting, the Resolution Professional was justified in declining to admit it.
The Bench also distinguished the earlier precedents cited by the appellant, noting that those cases concerned claims filed before the introduction of Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C), which came into effect on 18 September 2023. As the present claim was filed after the new provisions were introduced, those judgments were not applicable.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the importance of timely resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the tribunal observed that allowing belated claims at an advanced stage of the resolution process could undermine the objective of completing insolvency proceedings within prescribed timelines.
Accordingly, the NCLAT upheld the NCLT’s order rejecting the delayed claim and dismissed the appeal. However, the tribunal observed that it would remain open to the appellant to approach the successful resolution applicant regarding her claim, which may be considered within the financial outlay of the approved resolution plan.
Cause Title: Suman Chopra vs Arvind Kumar
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member)
Decision Date: 10 March 2026
