https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783469 The dominant issue was whether the resolution professional (RP) wrongly classified the appellant's claim, based on impugned invoices for alleged services/loss of generation during CIRP, as contingent and thereby denied payment. The Tribunal held that, since the legality and validity of the invoices and the corporate debtor's liability were sub judice before the HC, the claimed debt was contingent on the outcome of that writ petition, justifying contingent classification. Applying s. 18 IBC read with regs. 10, 13(1) and 14 of the CIRP Regulations, it held the RP's function is to collate and verify claims on available records, not to adjudicate disputed liability. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783469 The dominant issue was whether the resolution professional (RP) wrongly classified the appellant's claim, based on impugned invoices for alleged services/loss of generation during CIRP, as contingent and thereby denied payment. The Tribunal held that, since the legality and validity of the invoices and the corporate debtor's liability were sub judice before the HC, the claimed debt was contingent on the outcome of that writ petition, justifying contingent classification. Applying s. 18 IBC read with regs. 10, 13(1) and 14 of the CIRP Regulations, it held the RP's function is to collate and verify claims on available records, not to adjudicate disputed liability. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783469