NCLT Rejects ₹241.29 Crore Revised MSME Claim Against Hind Agro, Says RP Cannot Decide Unadjudicated Interest Disputes

June 11, 2026 : The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad Bench at Prayagraj, has dismissed an application filed by Modern Overseas Private Limited seeking admission of its revised operational debt claim of ₹241.29 crore in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Hind Agro Industries Limited. The Tribunal held that a substantially enhanced claim filed 561 days after the original claim verification process could not be entertained, particularly when the additional amount was based on unadjudicated interest claimed under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006.

The order was passed on 11 June 2026 by the Bench comprising Judicial Member Praveen Gupta and Technical Member Ashish Verma while deciding IA No. 722 of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 04/ALD/2019. The application had been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

The dispute arose after Modern Overseas initially submitted an operational creditor claim of ₹29.21 crore following the commencement of the CIRP against Hind Agro Industries Limited in March 2023. The Resolution Professional (RP) verified and admitted this claim. However, in December 2024, the company sought to revise its claim to ₹241.29 crore by including interest allegedly payable under Section 16 of the MSMED Act. The applicant contended that the RP had kept the revised claim pending and later advised it to approach the Tribunal for modification. It also challenged the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), alleging material irregularities in the insolvency process, non-compliance with Sections 29A and 30(2)(e) of the IBC, preferential treatment to the successful resolution applicant, improper asset valuation, and failure to account for compensation receivable from the Greater Chennai Corporation.

The Resolution Professional opposed the application, arguing that the revised claim was filed long after the statutory timelines prescribed under the CIRP Regulations and after the claim verification process had already concluded. The RP further submitted that the enhanced claim was unsupported by the necessary documents and primarily related to disputed MSME interest, which had never been adjudicated by any competent authority. The RP also relied upon Supreme Court precedents affirming that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors cannot ordinarily be questioned by operational creditors. The successful resolution applicant similarly argued that the application had been filed only to delay approval of the resolution plan and that all insolvency procedures had been followed in accordance with the IBC.

After examining the record, the Tribunal identified two principal questions: whether the Resolution Professional was obligated to admit the modified claim filed after the prescribed period and whether the operational creditor had the legal standing to challenge the CoC-approved resolution plan. The Bench noted that the revised claim had been submitted nearly eighteen months after the original claim had already been admitted and 561 days after completion of the verification process. It observed that permitting such a substantial alteration at an advanced stage of the CIRP would undermine the time-bound insolvency framework established under the IBC.

The Tribunal further clarified that the additional amount claimed represented interest under the MSMED Act, which had not been adjudicated or crystallised before commencement of the insolvency proceedings. It explained that the Resolution Professional performs an administrative function of receiving, verifying and collating claims and is not empowered to adjudicate disputed liabilities or quantify contested statutory interest. The Bench therefore held that the RP could not have admitted the enhanced claim merely because the applicant asserted entitlement under the MSMED Act.

Emphasising the limits of its own jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the NCLT also ruled that disputes regarding the applicability, computation or entitlement of interest under the MSMED Act must be decided by the competent statutory forum and cannot be adjudicated within insolvency proceedings. The Bench observed, “The Resolution Professional is not vested with adjudicatory powers to determine disputed liabilities or to quantify claims requiring adjudication.” It further held that “This Tribunal… cannot adjudicate upon the applicability, computation, or entitlement of interest under the MSME Act.”

On the challenge to the approved resolution plan, the Tribunal found that the applicant lacked the necessary locus standi to question the commercial decisions of the Committee of Creditors. The Bench recorded that the resolution plan had already secured approval with 87.54% voting share of the CoC after compliance with the statutory requirements under Sections 30(2) and 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Since the applicant’s revised claim itself was not maintainable, its objections to the resolution plan also failed.

The ruling reinforces the principle that insolvency proceedings under the IBC are intended to be completed within strict timelines and that creditors cannot substantially enhance admitted claims after the verification process has concluded, particularly when the enhancement depends upon unresolved statutory disputes. It also reiterates that Resolution Professionals are not adjudicating authorities and that issues involving disputed MSME interest must first be determined by the appropriate legal forum before they can form part of an insolvency claim. The judgment is expected to provide greater certainty to insolvency professionals and stakeholders by reaffirming the finality of claim verification and the primacy of the Committee of Creditors’ commercial wisdom.

Case Reference: Modern Overseas Private Limited v. Resolution Professional of Hind Agro Industries Limited & Others, IA No. 722 of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 04/ALD/2019.