Moratorium bars new CIRP liability, but identifiable pre-existing investment claims must still be verified and admitted if substantiated.

A liability said to arise from an appellate real estate authority order passed during the Section 14 moratorium could not be enforced as a CIRP claim, because moratorium preserves the status quo and bars proceedings that create fresh enforceable liabilities against the corporate debtor. However, the resolution professional was still required to examine the underlying investment and project records, since the insolvency framework requires collation of claims and identification of genuine pre-existing debts that are otherwise ascertainable. On that basis, the claim could be verified and included if the payment and corresponding liability were substantiated from the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a claim founded on an order passed by the appellate real estate authority during the subsistence of moratorium under the insolvency law could be maintained against the corporate debtor. (ii) Whether, notwithstanding rejection of the formal claim as belated or impermissible, the resolution professional was required to verify the underlying investment and include the respondent's claim in the insolvency process.

Issue (i): Whether a claim founded on an order passed by the appellate real estate authority during the subsistence of moratorium under the insolvency law could be maintained against the corporate debtor.

Analysis: Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prohibits continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor and is intended to preserve the status quo of assets and liabilities during CIRP. A determination made during moratorium cannot create a fresh liability against the corporate debtor except in cases permitted by the Code. The order of the appellate real estate authority, having been passed during moratorium, was treated as incapable of sustaining an enforceable claim in CIRP.

Conclusion: The claim based solely on the appellate real estate authority's order was held not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, notwithstanding rejection of the formal claim as belated or impermissible, the resolution professional was required to verify the underlying investment and include the respondent's claim in the insolvency process.

Analysis: The record showed that the respondent had paid consideration for allotment of a commercial unit and that the corporate debtor's obligations could be ascertained from the insolvency record and the admitted project dealings. The resolution professional's statutory duties under the Code and the CIRP Regulations include collation of claims and proper identification of liabilities; the insolvency framework is not meant to divest genuine pre-existing rights merely for want of a formal claim where the debt is otherwise identifiable.

Conclusion: The resolution professional was directed to verify the respondent's payment and include its claim if substantiated.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed on the challenge to the respondent's entitlement in principle, and the matter was disposed of with directions favouring verification and inclusion of the respondent's claim in the CIRP process.

Ratio Decidendi: A liability created by an adjudicatory order passed during the moratorium cannot be enforced as a CIRP claim, but a resolution professional must still ascertain and admit an identifiable pre-existing debt where the underlying investment and liability are otherwise demonstrable from the record.

---