Claim verification in insolvency cannot be reopened indefinitely where homebuyers' records were already admitted and supported by documents.

A successful resolution applicant cannot reopen homebuyers' claims through belated re-verification once the approved resolution plan period has expired, because claim verification under the insolvency framework rests primarily with the resolution professional and admitted claims already acted upon in the process should not be indefinitely revisited. Where the record showed banking payments, settlement documents, an allotment or builder-buyer agreement, and admission of claims in the creditors' list, the appellants' status as homebuyer-financial creditors was sufficiently established. On that basis, the appellants were entitled to allotment and consequential possession of the flats under the approved resolution plan, and the direction for further verification was inconsistent with the existing insolvency record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the successful resolution applicant could undertake fresh scrutiny or verification of homebuyers' claims after the time contemplated in the approved resolution plan had expired. (ii) Whether the appellants had established entitlement to allotment and possession of the flats on the basis of the record already accepted in the insolvency process.

Issue (i): Whether the successful resolution applicant could undertake fresh scrutiny or verification of homebuyers' claims after the time contemplated in the approved resolution plan had expired.

Analysis: The approved resolution plan contained a verification mechanism, but the admitted claims were already collated by the resolution professional and reflected in the creditors' list. The statutory scheme places verification and determination of claims primarily with the resolution professional, who may make a best estimate where records are incomplete and revise claims when additional information emerges. A resolution applicant cannot assume an open-ended power to re-verify claims indefinitely, particularly after the period stipulated in the plan has lapsed and the claims have already been acted upon in the insolvency process.

Conclusion: Fresh scrutiny by the successful resolution applicant at a belated stage was not justified and the appellants could not be relegated to an indefinite re-verification process.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had established entitlement to allotment and possession of the flats on the basis of the record already accepted in the insolvency process.

Analysis: The record showed payment through banking channels, subsequent settlement documentation, allotment letter or builder-buyer agreement, and admission of the claims by the resolution professional in the list of creditors. The Monitoring Committee had also verified the claims to the extent of payments made and supported by the corporate debtor's books and records. On that material, the appellants' status as homebuyer-financial creditors stood sufficiently established, and the impugned direction sending them back for further verification was inconsistent with the existing record and the resolution process already undertaken.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to allotment of the flats and consequential possession in terms of the approved resolution plan.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and implementation of the resolution plan was directed by recognising the appellants' claims and ensuring allotment and possession of the flats.

Ratio Decidendi: Where homebuyers' claims have already been provisionally admitted and verified within the insolvency framework, a successful resolution applicant cannot exercise an indefinite or belated power of re-verification to defeat those claims; the statutory function of claim verification remains primarily with the resolution professional, and admitted claims supported by record cannot be reopened contrary to the approved resolution plan and the time limit fixed therein.

---