Claim admission and collation disputes under insolvency law fail once homebuyers are represented in the Committee of Creditors.

An application concerning admission, scrutiny and inclusion of homebuyers' claims in the Committee of Creditors was found to have no surviving basis once the claims of association members had been admitted and they were represented through an authorised representative under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code framework. The Tribunal noted that claim verification and collation are the resolution professional's function, and that the applicants had no right to scrutinize claims of other creditors. Since the grievance had been addressed and the members were already participating in the decision-making process, the requested directions could not be pursued further and the application was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking directions on admission, scrutiny, and inclusion of claims of homebuyers in the Committee of Creditors was maintainable, and whether any further relief could be granted once the claims of the members of the association had been admitted and they were represented in the Committee of Creditors through an authorised representative.

Analysis: The application was filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. The dispute centred on the admission and collation of claims, the formation of the Committee of Creditors, and the appointment of an authorised representative under Section 21(6A)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The record showed that 22 claims had been admitted before the cut-off date and the remaining claims of the members of the association were also admitted in due course on production of proper documents. The members of the association were participating in the decision-making process through the duly appointed authorised representative. The Tribunal also noted that claim verification and collation are to be carried out by the resolution professional in accordance with the CIRP framework, and that the applicants had no entitlement under the Code to scrutinize claims made by other claimants. Once the claims stood admitted and the grievance was no longer subsisting, the reliefs sought lost their foundation. The application was therefore not maintainable for further adjudication on the requested directions.

Conclusion: The application was dismissed as not maintainable, and no further relief was granted.

---