Insolvency claim verification must stop at commencement date; post-commencement interest is not an admissible claim.

Claims in insolvency resolution must be verified with reference to the insolvency commencement date, so a revised claim can be accepted only for amounts due up to that date and cannot include post-commencement interest. The document also notes that deferment of publication of the expression of interest, discrepancies in the information memorandum, publication of the public announcement, and acceptance of the two registered valuers' reports were each assessed on the facts and did not warrant adverse action or interference. The concluding note records a contravention only in relation to admission of the post-commencement portion of the revised claim, while otherwise adopting a lenient view and imposing a compliance-based restriction on fresh assignments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acceptance of the revised claim of the financial creditor, to the extent it included post-insolvency commencement date interest, violated the requirement that claims be verified as on the insolvency commencement date; (ii) Whether deferment of publication of the expression of interest attracted disciplinary action; (iii) Whether the discrepancies noticed in the information memorandum warranted adverse action; (iv) Whether the public announcement was defective for not being published at the principal office location; and (v) Whether acceptance of the valuation reports furnished by the two registered valuers called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether acceptance of the revised claim of the financial creditor, to the extent it included post-insolvency commencement date interest, violated the requirement that claims be verified as on the insolvency commencement date.

Analysis: The resolution professional is required to receive, collate and verify claims with reference to the insolvency commencement date. A revised claim may be considered to the extent it reflects the amount due as on that date, but amounts arising after that date do not form part of the admissible claim. The inclusion of interest accruing after commencement of the process, therefore, was inconsistent with the statutory scheme governing verification of claims.

Conclusion: The acceptance of the claim for the pre-commencement period was permissible, but acceptance of the post-commencement portion was in violation of the governing regulations.

Issue (ii): Whether deferment of publication of the expression of interest attracted disciplinary action.

Analysis: The deferment was considered in the context of a settlement proposal placed before the committee of creditors and was not treated as a unilateral departure from the process. In the circumstances, the delay was viewed as having occurred within the decision-making framework of the process and a stricter disciplinary view was not considered necessary.

Conclusion: No adverse action was warranted on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the discrepancies noticed in the information memorandum warranted adverse action.

Analysis: The information memorandum must contain accurate and updated particulars of assets and liabilities, but the record also showed limited cooperation from the corporate debtor and an explanation for the inconsistency in the worker-dues figures. The discrepancy was treated as inadvertent and not as suppression of material information.

Conclusion: No severe disciplinary consequence was imposed on this issue.

Issue (iv): Whether the public announcement was defective for not being published at the principal office location.

Analysis: The publication was made in newspapers with circulation covering the relevant operational area, and supporting circulation material was produced to show adequate reach. The announcement was treated as compliant with the publication requirement in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The public announcement was held to be in compliance.

Issue (v): Whether acceptance of the valuation reports furnished by the two registered valuers called for interference.

Analysis: Valuation was undertaken by two registered valuers in accordance with the statutory framework. Although one report noted limited asset details, the divergence in the reports was not material, and the explanation regarding non-cooperation in providing asset particulars was accepted.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on the valuation issue.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary authority recorded contravention in relation to admission of the post-commencement portion of the revised claim, but otherwise took a largely lenient view and disposed of the matter with directions restricting fresh assignments until compliance with the specified educational requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Claims in insolvency resolution must be verified strictly with reference to the insolvency commencement date, and amounts accruing after that date cannot be treated as admissible claims in the resolution process.

---