https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95109 The dominant issue was whether the RP wrongly classified the appellant's CIRP claim under disputed invoices as contingent and denied payment for alleged services/loss of generation. Applying s.18 IBC read with regs. 10, 13(1) and 14 of the CIRP Regulations, the NCLAT held the RP's function is limited to collating and verifying claims on the basis of available documents and does not extend to adjudicating the legality or validity of disputed claims. Since the invoices' legality and the corporate debtor's liability were sub judice before the Allahabad HC and liability was consistently disputed, the claim was contingent on that outcome; the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:33:56 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:33:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95109 The dominant issue was whether the RP wrongly classified the appellant's CIRP claim under disputed invoices as contingent and denied payment for alleged services/loss of generation. Applying s.18 IBC read with regs. 10, 13(1) and 14 of the CIRP Regulations, the NCLAT held the RP's function is limited to collating and verifying claims on the basis of available documents and does not extend to adjudicating the legality or validity of disputed claims. Since the invoices' legality and the corporate debtor's liability were sub judice before the Allahabad HC and liability was consistently disputed, the claim was contingent on that outcome; the appeal was dismissed. Highlights IBC Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:33:56 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95109