NCLAT: Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Reopen Admitted Claims; Flags Re-verification Clauses in Resolution Plans

April 21, 2026 : The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, has ruled that a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) cannot reopen or re-adjudicate claims that have already been verified and admitted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), reinforcing the finality of claim determination under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice N. Seshasayee (Judicial Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2370 of 2024, arising from the CIRP of Maple Realcon Pvt. Ltd., developer of the “Misty Heights” project in Greater Noida.

Background

The appellant, a homebuyer, had purchased a flat for ₹47 lakh and filed his claim during CIRP, which was fully admitted by the Resolution Professional (RP) and reflected in the list of financial creditors as well as the Information Memorandum.

A resolution plan submitted by Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd. was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the NCLT in February 2020. The plan promised delivery of flats to homebuyers but included a clause allowing the SRA to verify original documents within a stipulated period.

Despite this, the SRA failed to hand over possession within the prescribed timelines and instead sought to re-examine the appellant’s claim years after plan approval, alleging discrepancies in documentation.

NCLAT Findings

Allowing the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that:

• The SRA’s role is limited to verifying the existence of original documents and executing necessary agreements; it cannot reassess or reject claims already admitted during CIRP.
• Once claims are verified by the RP and form part of the resolution plan approved by the CoC and Adjudicating Authority, they attain finality.
• The SRA takes over the corporate debtor on an “as is where is” basis, with liabilities crystallised through the CIRP process.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant’s claim had been fully admitted, with “nothing pending verification,” and continued to be reflected in creditor lists throughout the process.

Criticism of SRA Conduct

The Bench was critical of the SRA for:

• Failing to comply with timelines under the resolution plan
• Attempting to question the authenticity of documents long after approval
• Using the verification clause to delay or deny legitimate claims

It described such conduct as “questionable” and unsustainable in law.

On Verification Clauses

Importantly, the Tribunal cautioned against clauses in resolution plans that permit post-approval re-verification of claims:

• Such clauses cannot be interpreted to confer adjudicatory powers on the SRA
• Allowing re-adjudication would undermine certainty and finality under the IBC
• Claim verification squarely falls within the domain of the Resolution Professional

The Tribunal emphasized that any verification must be limited, time-bound, and procedural—not a mechanism to revisit settled claims.

Direction to IBBI

Taking note of systemic implications, the NCLAT urged the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to examine the inclusion of such clauses in resolution plans and ensure they do not enable misuse or prejudice creditor rights, particularly those of homebuyers.

Outcome

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the NCLT’s order that had permitted re-scrutiny by the SRA and held that the appellant’s entitlement under the approved resolution plan could not be subjected to fresh verification. The ruling effectively clears the way for enforcement of the homebuyer’s right to possession.

Case Title: Sanjeev Sangal vs Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2370 of 2024
Coram: Justice N. Seshasayee (Judicial Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member)