The Supreme Court held that verified and admitted homebuyer claims in a CIRP cannot be downgraded as belated claims for mere refunds. Once recognised under the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC and confirmed under Section 31, such homebuyers are entitled to possession and conveyance of their units in accordance with the binding plan.

The Appellate Tribunal reiterated that service of a Section 95(4)(b) demand notice is a mandatory statutory precondition for initiating insolvency against personal guarantors; however, once receipt and knowledge are admitted, technical service objections cannot defeat the proceedings.

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 IBC, all earlier statutory dues, including government tax claims, stand extinguished and cannot be enforced post-approval.

NCLAT held that once CoC is constituted, CIRP withdrawal must comply with Section 12A read with Regulation 30A(1)(b), requiring 90% CoC approval—pre-CoC settlements cannot override this requirement.

NCLAT held that a financial debt can be recognized under IBC based on substance and evidence of lending, even without a formal loan agreement or sanction letter.

NCLAT ruled that Provident Fund claims filed after CoC approval cannot be entertained under IBC, emphasizing the clean slate principle and the finality of approved Resolution Plans.

NCLAT New Delhi ruled that an order admitting a Corporate Debtor to CIRP without granting a fair hearing must be set aside, and any subsequent settlement must comply with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’s procedural safeguards.

NCLAT New Delhi held that a Section 9 IBC application must exceed the financial threshold excluding interest, and unsupported interest claims are not recoverable, rendering such petitions non-maintainable regardless of limitation.

NCLAT New Delhi ruled that Financial Creditor status under IBC requires documentary proof of disbursement, and claims not admitted before resolution plan approval cannot be reopened, upholding finality in the insolvency process.

NCLAT ruled that CIRP claims must be backed by valid documents and timely submitted, and agreements by disqualified directors or sister concerns lacking privity are unenforceable, thereby upholding the sanctity of the resolution plan.