Resolution Professional disclosure rights: records linked to the corporate debtor must be produced even while ownership disputes continue.

A Resolution Professional may seek disclosure of rent and parking income records connected with a mall where the information has a direct nexus with the Corporate Debtor's affairs and is needed to verify relevant facts during CIRP. A third party cannot refuse cooperation merely because title to the property or entitlement to revenues is disputed, especially where contractual links and group structure show a sufficient connection with the Corporate Debtor. A disclosure direction of this kind does not determine ownership, revenue entitlement, or liability; it only requires production of records for examination of the Corporate Debtor's affairs. On that basis, the disclosure direction was upheld and the objection to furnishing information failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Resolution Professional was entitled to seek disclosure of rent and parking income records connected with the mall from the Appellant, and whether the direction to furnish such information could be interfered with on the ground that the Appellant was a third party and the ownership or revenue entitlement was disputed.

Analysis: The Appellant's reliance on the 2011 and 2018 agreements did not displace the Resolution Professional's statutory duty to collect and verify information concerning the affairs of the Corporate Debtor during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The direction under challenge did not decide title to the mall, did not adjudicate entitlement to the revenues, and did not impose any liability on the Appellant; it only required production of records relevant to matters already under scrutiny. The existence of continuing disputes, including pending proceedings concerning alleged diversion of value, made disclosure necessary for meaningful examination of the Corporate Debtor's affairs. The Appellant's admitted connection with the Corporate Debtor through contractual arrangements and group structure showed a sufficient nexus for cooperation, and separate legal personality could not be used to withhold relevant information.

Conclusion: The direction to furnish the requested information was justified, and the Appellant's objection to disclosure failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the disclosure direction was upheld without any adjudication of the substantive ownership or entitlement disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where information has a direct nexus with the Corporate Debtor's affairs and is needed for the Resolution Professional to discharge statutory duties, disclosure may be directed even if substantive rights over the underlying assets or revenues remain disputed.

---