https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776964 NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the IRP and adjudicating authority's rejection of the operational creditor's claim. The tribunal found the IRP had dutifully sought verification and exercised caution; the claim lacked prima facie support in the corporate debtor's books and other records, and the engagement evidence and alleged allotment of flats/inventories by group companies were not sufficiently substantiated. Doubts about the engagement documentation and failure to provide necessary particulars justified rejection. The IRP's role in collection and preliminary verification was distinguished from the NCLT's adjudicatory function. en-us Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:33:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776964 NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the IRP and adjudicating authority's rejection of the operational creditor's claim. The tribunal found the IRP had dutifully sought verification and exercised caution; the claim lacked prima facie support in the corporate debtor's books and other records, and the engagement evidence and alleged allotment of flats/inventories by group companies were not sufficiently substantiated. Doubts about the engagement documentation and failure to provide necessary particulars justified rejection. The IRP's role in collection and preliminary verification was distinguished from the NCLT's adjudicatory function. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776964