Rights Of Creditor In CIRP Are Determined By The IBC, Not The Quantum Of Claim: NCLT Chandigarh

The Chandigarh National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 10 July held that a creditor cannot seek disclosure of a resolution plan pending approval merely because it has a substantial claim. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) determines a creditor's rights in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), and not the quantum of its dues.

A Bench of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal dismissed the application filed by Resolution Professional (RP) Rajeev Bhambri seeking disclosure of the resolution plan of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, holding that Bhambri, classified as an “Other Creditor – Related Party”, could not claim access to the plan under the IBC. It observed:

“The Applicant has sought to distinguish its case on the ground that its claim is substantial and that it is itself undergoing CIRP. In our considered view, neither the quantum of the claim nor the pendency of CIRP proceedings against the Applicant creates any statutory entitlement to seek disclosure of the Resolution Plan. The rights of a creditor in a CIRP are determined by the provisions of the Code and not by the magnitude of the claim asserted. Once the Applicant stands classified as an “Other Creditor – Related Party”, it cannot claim a right superior to that conferred by law.”

Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited entered CIRP on 27 February 2023 after the NCLT appointed Arvind Kumar as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and later confirmed him as the RP.

Bhambri, who was appointed as IRP and later confirmed as RP of Future Colonisers & Construction Limited after it entered CIRP on 13 October 2022, claimed that his investment under a 2013 joint venture agreement with Chandigarh Overseas constituted financial debt. He filed a claim of Rs. 135.94 crore in March 2023.

Chandigarh Overseas's RP, Mohit Chawla rejected Bhambri's claim as operational debt and classified him as a related party creditor. Bhambri challenged this classification, seeking recognition as a financial creditor.

The NCLT dismissed his challenge on 13 March 2026, holding that the joint venture agreement did not create financial debt and that the RP correctly classified him as a related party.

Bhambri later sought disclosure of the resolution plan, or extracts relating to his claim, arguing that he needed the information to determine how the plan treated his admitted dues. He contended that the RP's classification of his claim as related party debt excluded him from the Committee of Creditors (CoC), depriving him of voting rights and access to the resolution plan. Chawla, opposed the plea and argued that an operational creditor, other creditor or other creditor (related party) cannot seek a copy or extract of a resolution plan.

The Tribunal held that the IBC framework allows only CoC members and eligible participants to receive copies of resolution plans. It observed that operational creditors and related party creditors cannot enforce any right to access such plans before approval by the NCLT.

It relied on precedents including Pakhi Infra & Ors. v. Jabalpur MSW Pvt. Ltd. and SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhuvan Madan (RP), which held that resolution plans retain confidentiality until the NCLT approves them. It observed:

“The Code contemplates a carefully regulated mechanism for circulation of Resolution Plans, restricting access to members and participants of the Committee of Creditors in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Code and the applicable regulations. The Applicant admittedly is neither a member of the CoC nor a participant entitled to receive copies of the Resolution Plan.”

The Bench also rejected Bhambri's reliance on Oceanic Technical Services v. Ajay Joshi, noting that the case involved limited disclosure of portions of a resolution plan relating to an admitted operational creditor's claim. In contrast, Bhambri had already been classified as a related party and not as a financial creditor.

Further, it held that directing disclosure of the resolution plan while it remained pending approval could compromise the confidentiality of the CIRP process and affect the resolution mechanism under the IBC.

Accordingly, the NCLT dismissed and disposed of the application seeking disclosure of the resolution plan.

For Applicants: Advocate Karanveer Jindal

For Respondents: Advocates Atul V Sood and Rohan Sood