The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has delivered a landmark ruling affirming that once a homebuyer's claim is fully admitted by the Resolution Professional and incorporated into an approved Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Successful Resolution Applicant cannot invoke a verification clause to indefinitely delay possession or re-examine the authenticity of documents already accepted.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sanjeev Sangal, is a homebuyer who purchased Unit B-0102 in Tower B of the Misty Heights project in Greater Noida from Maple Realcon Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor. He paid the full consideration of ₹47,00,000 in two cash installments on 29.07.2016 and 12.08.2016, and executed a Builder Buyer Agreement on 09.03.2018, confirmed by a letter from the Corporate Debtor’s authorized signatory, Mr. B.P. Singh. The Corporate Debtor entered Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 18.07.2018.
Key Facts
- The appellant filed his claim in Form C on 06.08.2018, attaching the Builder Buyer Agreement and payment receipts.
- The Resolution Professional (RP) admitted the claim in full on 01.12.2018, noting no further verification was pending.
- The appellant’s name appeared as Financial Creditor No. 265 in the list of creditors submitted to the Adjudicating Authority on 11.10.2019.
- The Resolution Plan, submitted by M/s Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd. (SRA) on 04.09.2019, was approved by the Committee of Creditors (89.07% vote) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 20.02.2020.
- The Resolution Plan’s Clause 6 provided for delivery of flats within 21 months for Tower B, subject to verification of original documents within 60 days of approval.
- The SRA failed to verify documents within 60 days of approval (by 20.04.2020) and did not deliver possession.
- From July 2022 onward, the appellant repeatedly requested possession and submitted original documents, but the SRA delayed, then alleged forgery without forensic evidence.
- On 09.12.2022, the SRA initiated an adjudicatory inquiry, demanding bank statements despite the appellant’s disclosure that payments were made in cash.
- The appellant filed IA No. 1929/2024 under Section 74(3) IBC seeking enforcement of the Resolution Plan.
Procedural History
- 18.07.2018: CIRP initiated against Maple Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
- 06.08.2018: Appellant filed claim with RP.
- 01.12.2018: RP admitted claim in full.
- 11.10.2019: RP submitted list of creditors with appellant’s claim listed as fully admitted.
- 04.09.2019: SRA submitted Resolution Plan.
- 20.02.2020: NCLT approved Resolution Plan.
- 16.07.2022: Appellant first wrote to SRA demanding possession.
- 08.08.2022 & 28.10.2022: Appellant physically submitted original documents to SRA.
- 09.12.2022: SRA refused possession, alleging document forgery.
- 27.11.2024: NCLT disposed of IA 1929/2024 by directing SRA to re-scrutinize claim, while holding the flat in abeyance.
- 28.03.2025: Appeal filed before NCLAT under Section 61 IBC.
- 21.04.2026: NCLAT delivered judgment.
The Parties' Positions
The appellant contended that his claim was fully admitted, verified, and incorporated into the approved Resolution Plan, entitling him to possession without further conditions. He argued that the SRA’s post-approval verification attempt was a delay tactic and violated the binding nature of the plan.
The SRA claimed that the Resolution Plan’s verification clause empowered it to re-scrutinize all claims, even those admitted by the RP, to prevent fraudulent claims. It alleged the payment receipts were forged and that cash payments above ₹2,00,000 violated Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Setting aside of the NCLT’s order dated 27.11.2024
- Directing the SRA to hand over physical possession and title of Unit B-0102, Tower B, Misty Heights
- Restraint on the SRA from alienating the flat
- Any other relief deemed just
The Legal Issue
Can a Successful Resolution Applicant invoke a verification clause in an approved Resolution Plan to re-examine and potentially reject a homebuyer’s claim that was fully admitted by the Resolution Professional and reflected in the list of creditors submitted to the Adjudicating Authority?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on Amit Nehra & Anr v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1941), where the Supreme Court held that once a homebuyer’s claim is verified and admitted by the RP and included in the list of creditors before plan approval, the SRA cannot deny possession under a verification clause. He argued that Regulation 13 and 14 of the CIRP Regulations vest exclusive power to verify and revise claims in the RP during CIRP, not the SRA post-approval. He further cited Regulation 8A(2) to show that BBA and payment receipts are sufficient proof of debt. The appellant emphasized that the SRA’s failure to verify within 60 days waived its right to re-scrutinize. He also invoked the contra proferentem rule and the Clean Slate doctrine, arguing that the SRA took over liabilities as crystallized by the RP and CoC.
For the Respondent
The SRA contended that the verification clause was a legitimate safeguard against fraudulent claims, given the RP’s provisional admission of ₹95.84 crores based on incomplete records. It argued that Section 31 IBC makes the Resolution Plan binding, including its verification mechanism. It claimed the appellant’s documents were forged, citing the absence of bank statements and non-conformity with standard formats. It also invoked the Supreme Court’s observation in The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Anr to argue that cash payments above ₹2,00,000 are illegal. The SRA asserted that its verification process was ongoing and not prejudicial, as the flat was held in abeyance.
The Court's Analysis
The NCLAT conducted a rigorous analysis of the statutory framework under the IBC and the binding nature of approved Resolution Plans. It emphasized that Section 31 IBC renders the Resolution Plan binding on all stakeholders upon approval, and that the plan’s terms cannot be unilaterally altered by the SRA after approval.
"The approval of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the IBC has the effect of making the Resolution Plan binding on all stakeholders. These stakeholders include the employees of the corporate debtor whose terms of employment would be governed by the Resolution Plan, the Central and State Governments who would receive their tax dues on the basis of the terms of the Resolution Plan and local authorities to whom dues are owed."
The Tribunal noted that the RP had admitted the appellant’s claim in full on 01.12.2018, and the claim was explicitly listed as fully admitted in the creditor list submitted to the NCLT before plan approval. The SRA, having prepared the Resolution Plan based on the RP’s verified list, could not later dispute the authenticity of documents it had already accepted as part of its own proposal.
The Tribunal rejected the SRA’s argument that the verification clause permitted indefinite scrutiny. It held that the clause’s 60-day timeline was mandatory and failure to act within it extinguished the right to re-verify. The SRA’s conduct - delaying for over five years, then alleging forgery without forensic evidence - was deemed an abuse of process.
The Court also dismissed the SRA’s reliance on Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, noting the payments were made in 2016, before the law came into force on 01.04.2017. It cited Georgekutty Chacko v MN Saji (2025) to affirm that absence of bank records does not negate cash payments when supported by documentary evidence and admission by the RP.
The Tribunal further observed that the SRA’s conduct raised serious concerns about its connection to the erstwhile management, noting that the ex-director who signed the documents had affirmed their authenticity. The Court stated that the SRA’s attempt to re-litigate admitted claims undermines the entire CIRP framework and creates uncertainty for homebuyers.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The NCLAT set aside the NCLT’s order dated 27.11.2024 and directed the SRA to hand over physical possession and title of Unit B-0102, Tower B, Misty Heights, Greater Noida, to the appellant within 60 days. The Tribunal further directed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to investigate systemic irregularities in the CIRP, including potential misuse of Section 9 proceedings and non-compliance with Section 29A.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Verification Clauses Cannot Override Admitted Claims
- Practitioners must argue that once a homebuyer’s claim is admitted by the RP and reflected in the creditor list submitted to the NCLT before plan approval, the SRA cannot invoke verification clauses to delay or deny possession.
- Any verification clause must be time-bound; failure to act within the stipulated period (e.g., 60 days) constitutes waiver of the right to re-scrutinize.
- Post-approval verification attempts are legally untenable unless new, credible evidence of fraud emerges - mere suspicion or document format discrepancies are insufficient.
RP’s Admission Is Final Unless Revised During CIRP
- The Resolution Professional alone has statutory authority under Regulation 13 and 14 of the CIRP Regulations to verify and revise claims during CIRP.
- Any revision of an admitted claim must occur during CIRP and be based on new information; it cannot be delegated to the SRA after plan approval.
- The Clean Slate doctrine under Section 31 IBC requires the SRA to take over liabilities as crystallized by the RP and CoC, not to re-negotiate them.
Cash Payments Are Not Per Se Illegal in Legacy Transactions
- Payments made before the enactment of Section 269ST (01.04.2017) cannot be invalidated on the ground of cash usage.
- Courts must consider the totality of evidence - BBA, payment receipts, RP admission, and affidavit of the signatory - over mere procedural objections.
- The burden of proving forgery lies on the SRA, and mere non-conformity with internal formats does not constitute fraud.
