https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784300 Claims submitted within the Supreme Court's excluded limitation period were treated as timely, so no condonation of delay was required for admission. However, the Resolution Professional and Adjudicating Authority were entitled to verify the supporting material and reject the claims on merits where the alleged loan documents showed serious inconsistencies, defective stamping, weak authorisation, and no reliable contemporaneous demand or repayment record. The corporate debtor's balance sheets also reflected the sums as other advances rather than borrowings, with no interest provision or corroborating tax evidence. On that basis, the claims were not established as genuine financial debt and the rejection was sustained. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:51:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784300 Claims submitted within the Supreme Court's excluded limitation period were treated as timely, so no condonation of delay was required for admission. However, the Resolution Professional and Adjudicating Authority were entitled to verify the supporting material and reject the claims on merits where the alleged loan documents showed serious inconsistencies, defective stamping, weak authorisation, and no reliable contemporaneous demand or repayment record. The corporate debtor's balance sheets also reflected the sums as other advances rather than borrowings, with no interest provision or corroborating tax evidence. On that basis, the claims were not established as genuine financial debt and the rejection was sustained. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784300