NCLT: A Successor RP Can Re-verify Unsupported Homebuyer Claims

Published: 1 November 2026 · Source checked: 1 November 2026

An earlier RP’s admission did not make homebuyer claims immune from verification in Wadhwa Buildcon’s CIRP. On 11 September 2026, NCLT Mumbai upheld the successor Resolution Professional’s exercise where records lacked support and authenticity concerns emerged. The qualification matters: updating and verifying claims is an administrative responsibility, not a general power to adjudicate disputed legal rights. Official order, paragraphs 38–50.

The order at a glance

The application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 sought to invalidate re-verification and the consequent CoC reconstitution, restore earlier voting shares, and set aside subsequent resolutions. The order determined that challenge. It did not decide a criminal prosecution for forgery or grant the RP judicial powers. Official order, paragraphs 1 and 50.

Why the verification question affected control of the CoC

The corporate debtor entered CIRP on 28 July 2020. A later RP was replaced by Manish Lalji Dawda on 2 July 2024. The earlier creditor list recorded homebuyers with 66.42% voting share and Bank of India with 33.58%. After the disputed exercise, the recorded shares included 30.48% for homebuyers and 69.01% for the bank. A further reconstitution followed on 27 November 2024.

The applicant’s objection was therefore substantive: revisiting admitted claims could change creditor participation and voting influence. His case was that the new RP lacked authority to reopen what the earlier RP had accepted. The Tribunal nevertheless examined what had actually been requested, what the records showed and whether the RP was verifying evidence rather than finally adjudicating disputed rights. Official order, paragraphs 35–38.

The percentages are historical figures stated in this litigation. They are not a representation of the present CoC or a calculation of any creditor’s current entitlement.

The record showed document requests, not merely a changed conclusion

The successor RP sought supporting material through emails dated 17 August and 11 September 2024, followed by reminders. The requested material included Form CA, identity documents, bank statements evidencing the buyer’s own payments, and housing-loan documents where finance had been used. The order records that some material was missing from the files received from the previous RP.

The Tribunal placed particular weight on the communication that categorised the claim as documents awaited and said the CoC would be reconstituted when the documents were received. It found that the applicant’s claim had been kept under verification rather than outright rejected in that communication. This detail narrows the decision: a request to substantiate an incomplete claim is not equivalent to a judicial determination extinguishing it. Official order, paragraphs 40–41.

There was also a forensic examiner’s report. The Bench recorded that the report dated 18 October 2024 found problems described as forgery in 18 of the 19 claim forms examined, including the applicant’s form. That finding in the civil insolvency record supported the need for scrutiny. It should not be rewritten as a criminal conviction of any identified homebuyer or proof that every claim in the project was false. Official order, paragraphs 42 and 49.

The legal boundary: verification remains administrative

The Bench read Section 25(2)(e), requiring an updated list of claims, together with Regulation 13(1) of the CIRP Regulations as reproduced in the order. It held that the duty continued when a successor RP took charge. Earlier admission did not oblige the new RP to carry forward an incomplete or unsupported record mechanically.

At the same time, paragraph 43 affirmed the limit on the RP’s role: the RP performs administrative functions within the Code and regulations and does not exercise adjudicatory power. The order’s discussion of appellate authorities distinguished verification of the material establishing a claim from adjudication of disputed rights. Official order, paragraphs 38–47.

Those propositions must be read together. A successor appointment is not, by itself, permission to rewrite the creditor list arbitrarily. The reasons here were missing supporting documents, repeated requests, authenticity concerns and the specific verification process described in the record. The judgment also discussed precedents concerning removal from a CoC and restored CIRP proceedings, explaining why it considered those factual settings different. Official order, paragraphs 48–49.

What the dismissal establishes—and what it leaves open

In paragraph 50, NCLT held that the challenged re-verification complied with the Code and CIRP Regulations and dismissed IA 5387/2024. The result defeated the request to invalidate this exercise and obtain the associated reliefs.

It does not establish a universal rule that any RP may exclude any admitted creditor without explanation. It does not determine every homebuyer’s final admitted amount, validate every conceivable notice practice, or eliminate the distinction between verification and adjudication. The supplied record also contains a challenge to meeting notice; the holding analysed here concerns the lawfulness of re-verification, not a free-standing general rule on minimum notice periods.

How practitioners can use the distinction

For a creditor answering a fresh verification request, the useful response is an organised evidence trail: the earlier admission, underlying agreement and allotment, payment proof, loan disbursements where relevant, and a record of what was supplied and when. A bare assertion that an earlier RP accepted the claim may fail to answer a documented deficiency. This is an evidentiary lesson from the order, not a new statutory filing deadline.

For an RP, the order illustrates why the file should identify the specific gap, record document requests, explain the status assigned to the claim and update the list as material arrives. Characterising a disputed issue as verification does not automatically make it administrative; the actual exercise and relief remain important.

For a challenge, separate three questions: whether further proof could properly be sought, whether the particular claim decision was supported, and whether consequent CoC action complied with applicable requirements. This order resolved the first question against the applicant on its facts; it should not replace analysis of the other questions in a different record.

Common questions

Can an admitted claim ever be revisited by a new RP?

This order says yes where the new RP encounters incomplete support or material authenticity concerns and undertakes the verification required for an updated list. It does not give a general judicial review power to the RP.

Did NCLT hold that the homebuyers had been convicted of forgery?

No. It relied on a forensic report recorded in the insolvency application. The order’s dismissal is not a criminal conviction.

Did “documents awaited” mean permanent rejection?

The Tribunal read the relevant emails as keeping the applicant’s claim under verification, with the CoC to be updated on receipt of supporting documents. That factual finding was central to its analysis.

Source and treatment limits

The primary source is the NCLT Mumbai order of 11 September 2026, especially paragraphs 38–50. This note reports that decision as delivered. Targeted internal and official-source checks on 1 November 2026 did not establish subsequent treatment. Official search results included an earlier appeal with matching party names, which alone cannot establish an appeal from this September order. No statement that the order is unappealed, unstayed or finally binding is made.

Related reading: Why statutory pleading defects defeated a different NCLT admission petition.