NCLT Chandigarh Rejects Recasting Of Claims Based On Pre-CIRP Refunds, Upholds RP Methodology

The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 5 June 2026 held that homebuyers cannot reappropriate amounts refunded before commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) towards interest to enhance their admitted claims.

Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal dismissed applications filed by homebuyers challenging the Resolution Professional's adjustment of a pre-CIRP refund of Rs. 40,00,000 against principal instead of interest and upheld the Resolution Professional's method of computation. The Bench held:

“In view of the foregoing, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Respondent has acted within the scope of his statutory duties under the Code and CIRP Regulations. The methodology adopted for claim admission is reasonable, legally sustainable, and does not warrant interference”

The applicants purchased units in the “Ess Vee Apartments” project developed by Samar Estates Private Limited and paid Rs. 42,89,820 in total. They received refunds aggregating Rs. 40,00,000 between August 2019 and January 2020 under an order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Panchkula, which preceded commencement of CIRP on 12 January 2024.

After commencement of CIRP, the applicants filed a claim of Rs. 1,35,62,303 in Form CA. The Resolution Professional admitted the claim to the extent of Rs. 33,27,087, which included Rs. 2,89,820 towards outstanding principal and Rs. 30,37,267 towards interest calculated at 8% per annum up to the respective refund dates.

The applicants sought recomputation of the admitted claim, arguing that the Resolution Professional should have first appropriated the refund of Rs. 40,00,000 towards interest and delay compensation and only thereafter towards principal. They also stated that he wrongly applied the refund against principal while ignoring general civil law principles on appropriation of payments.

Rejecting these submissions, the Tribunal held that insolvency law does not permit application of civil law rules on appropriation of payments because the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code operates as a complete and self-contained framework.

It relied on Regulation 13 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which limits admission to claims that remain due and outstanding as on the insolvency commencement date.

Further, the Bench noted that neither the Permanent Lok Adalat order nor any other material showed that the refunds were intended to be adjusted towards interest. It also noted that the applicants failed to prove that the corporate debtor treated the refunds as payments towards interest.

Moreover, it observed that the Resolution Professional obtained legal opinion before finalising the claim computation and applied a uniform methodology for similarly situated homebuyers, thereby ensuring equitable treatment across claims.

Accordingly, the NCLT dismissed the applications.