Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Principal Bench

Order Date: 20 July 2026

Case Overview

This matter involves an Interlocutory Application (IA-724/2026) filed by Dr. O. P. Yadava, an allottee in the 'Vardhaman I Valley' project of the Corporate Debtor, M/s Vardhaman Estates & Developers Pvt. Ltd., which is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Applicant had made total payments of ₹1,32,70,832 for Unit No. N-16, Ground Floor and submitted a belated claim on 19 May 2025. After discovering that another allottee, Mr. Manish Kumar Goel, had an admitted claim for the same unit, the Applicant sought disclosure of documents related to Mr. Goel's claim, including the sub-lease agreement, proof of payments, claim form, and admission details. The Applicant alleged that the Resolution Professional (RP) acted arbitrarily by not disclosing the competing claim earlier.

The RP defended the position, stating that Mr. Goel's claim for ₹1,11,27,429 was verified and admitted on 03 September 2024, based on a sub-lease agreement dated 05 July 2017 for 2516 sq. ft., while the Applicant's claim was based on an agreement dated 25 September 2019 for 6000 sq. ft. The RP argued that disclosure of confidential claim documents to another financial creditor is not permitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and regulations, and that such requests must be routed through the Committee of Creditors (CoC) via the Authorized Representative.

Final Outcome

The NCLT dismissed the application, upholding the RP's position. The tribunal ruled that the RP cannot share confidential claim documents of one financial creditor with another individual creditor in the same class without a specific decision from the CoC under Section 21(9) of the IBC. The bench cited the NCLAT judgment in Acrow Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. to support this position. The tribunal noted that the Applicant's belated claim would be treated according to the provisions of the approved resolution plan, and found no merit in the allegation that the RP suppressed information about the competing claim.

Topics: Insolvency Process, Real Estate Allottee Rights, Confidentiality of Claims