RP Can Re-Verify Earlier Claims Admitted By Erstwhile RP Where Records Reveal Deficiencies: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai on 11 September held that a Resolution Professional (RP) can re-verify claims admitted by an erstwhile RP when the available records disclose deficiencies, discrepancies or concerns regarding their authenticity. Such verification is part of the RP's statutory duty to maintain and update the list of creditors and does not amount to adjudication of disputed rights.

A Bench comprising Judicial Member Vinay Goel and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati dismissed an application filed by the Authorised Representative of Creditors in Class (Homebuyers), challenging the re-verification of homebuyers' claims and the consequent reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP. It observed:

“…in terms of Section 25(2)(e) of the Code read with Regulation 13(1) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, the Respondent, upon assuming charge as the Resolution Professional, was statutorily responsible for maintaining and updating the list of creditors on the basis of the latest information, records and material available with him. The mere fact that the claims had earlier been examined and admitted by the erstwhile Resolution Professional did not preclude the Respondent from examining the records and verifying the correctness and authentication of such claims...”

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Wadhwa Buildcon LLP commenced in 2020. The erstwhile RP, Vishal Ghisulal Jain, filed an updated list of creditors in January 2023, under which the homebuyers had a 66.42% voting share in the CoC, while Bank of India had 33.58%.

After the resolution plan submitted by the promoter was set aside by the NCLT on 20 March 2024, Bank of India sought replacement of Jain as RP. The NCLT allowed the application on 2 July 2024 and appointed Manish Lalji Dawda as the new RP.

Dawda thereafter scrutinised the records handed over by the erstwhile RP and sought additional documents from the homebuyers, including Form CA, KYC documents, bank statements evidencing payment of margin money and housing-loan documents. Following the re-verification, the homebuyers' voting share fell to 30.48%, while Bank of India's voting share increased to 69.01%.

The Applicant contended that the claims had already been examined and admitted by the erstwhile RP and that the new RP had no jurisdiction to re-verify them.

The RP, on the other hand, submitted that several claims were incomplete, unnotarised and unsupported by documents establishing the claimants' status as financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). It further submitted that a forensic examination found 18 of the 19 claim forms examined to be forged, including the Applicant's claim form.

The Tribunal examined the RP's statutory duty under Section 25(2)(e) of the IBC and Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations, which require the RP to maintain and update the list of claims based on the available material.

It also relied on the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) decision in Somani Worsted Ltd. v. Amit Aggarwal, RP of Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd., (2026) ibclaw.in 1008 NCLAT, which held that an RP is not required to continue an earlier admission of a claim where subsequent verification shows that the claim is unsupported or has not been established. It held:

“..Such verification is part of the RP's duty to verify and update claims under Regulation 13(1) of the CIRP Regulations 2016 and does not amount to adjudication of the claims.”

Accordingly, the NCLT dismissed the application.

For Applicant: Adv. Rohan Agrawal a/w Adv. Yahya Batatawala, Adv. Krushi Shah

For Respondent: Sr. Adv. Sunil Fernandes a/w Adv. Maulik Chokshi, Adv. Sayali Patil, Adv. Jay Botadara