Can a Resolution Professional Reduce an Admitted Claim During CIRP?

A creditor files a claim; the resolution professional admits it; the creditor takes its place in the committee of creditors. Weeks later, records surface showing that a large part of the amount had been adjusted against debit notes. Can there be a revision of an admitted claim in CIRP, or is admission final until a tribunal says otherwise?

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (Court VI), addressed this in Bharat Bhushan, Proprietor of Sai Traders v. Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. On re-verification, debit notes that had not been disclosed came to light, and the admitted claim was reduced to a small residual figure. The Tribunal held that Regulation 14(2) of the CIRP Regulations provides how the claim amount is to be determined, that the resolution professional is vested with the power to revise a claim on the basis of the documents on record, and that on the facts the professional had not acted ultra vires, with no arbitrariness or illegality in the verification process followed.

Where the Power Comes From?

The source of the power is frequently misdescribed, so it is worth stating precisely.

• Section 18(1)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) requires the interim resolution professional to receive and collate all claims submitted by creditors.
• Section 25(2) sets out the duties of the resolution professional in running the process — taking custody of assets, representing the corporate debtor, maintaining an updated list of claims, convening and attending meetings of the committee of creditors (“CoC”), preparing the information memorandum, inviting and presenting resolution plans, and applying to avoid preferential and similar transactions.
• Regulation 13(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 requires the professional to verify every claim within seven days of the last date of receipt of claims and to maintain a list of creditors with the amounts claimed, admitted and the security interest.
• Regulation 14 governs determination of the amount of a claim: where the amount is not precise due to a contingency or other reason, the professional makes the best estimate on the basis of available information; and, critically, Regulation 14(2) requires that estimate to be revised as soon as the relevant information becomes available.

Read together, these provisions describe a continuing function. Verification is not a single act closed by a first decision; the list of creditors is a living document that the professional is obliged to keep accurate.

When Can a Resolution Professional Revise a Claim?

The point at which the professional’s power ends has been settled for some years. In Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17, the Supreme Court described the resolution professional’s role as administrative rather than quasi-judicial, noting that the professional is not required to take decisions but to collate facts and apply to the Adjudicating Authority for directions where necessary. The professional therefore:

• may re-examine an admitted claim against the corporate debtor’s books, contemporaneous documents and the creditor’s own records, and revise the figure;
• may not adjudicate a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt, decide contested questions of law, or determine the validity of set-offs and counterclaims that turn on disputed facts.

The distinction is between arithmetic and adjudication. Reducing a claim because the ledger shows credit notes is the first; refusing a claim because the professional prefers one party’s construction of a contract is the second.

Two safeguards attach in practice. The revision should be based on documents on the record and communicated with reasons, and the affected creditor’s remedy lies in an application to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5). The obligation to act fairly is also reflected in the Code of Conduct in the First Schedule to the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016.

Why Accuracy of the List Matters

An error in the admitted claim amount is not a bookkeeping matter. The amount admitted determines the creditor’s voting share under Section 5(28), and voting share determines whether resolutions carry. A materially wrong list can therefore taint the CoC’s decisions, which is why claim admission is among the most frequently litigated aspects of the process.

At the same time, finality is protected at the other end. In Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531, the Supreme Court held that a successful resolution applicant cannot be faced with undecided claims after its plan has been accepted; and in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657, that claims not forming part of an approved plan stand extinguished. The counterweight is Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 INSC 102, where the Court held that the form of a claim is directory, that a claim supported by proof must be considered, and that the tribunal has inherent power to recall an approval order in an appropriate case.

The Framework After 26 May 2026

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (Act 6 of 2026), in force in the relevant respects from 26 May 2026, puts the verification duty into the statute and tightens the surrounding timelines.

• Section 18(b), as amended, requires claims to be collated in the specified manner, with an Explanation providing that the interim resolution professional shall verify claims and, if required, determine their value. The duty is no longer only a matter of delegated legislation.
• Section 5(28) now defines voting share by reference to the financial debt owed to the members of the CoC who are eligible to vote, which removes an ambiguity in computing shares where some creditors are excluded.
• Section 30(4) requires the CoC to record reasons for approving a resolution plan, and Section 31(2A) requires the Adjudicating Authority to decide on a plan within thirty days, recording reasons for delay.
• Section 31(6) extinguishes claims prior to approval unless the plan provides otherwise, with Explanation III extending that rule to plans approved since the Code commenced, except matters that have attained finality.
• In liquidation, Section 35(1)(a) now requires the liquidator to maintain an updated list of claims rather than to invite claims afresh, and Sections 38 to 42 have been omitted. This applies to liquidations initiated after the commencement date. The consequence is that the accuracy of the list maintained during the CIRP carries directly into liquidation, so errors are no longer corrected by a second round of claim filing.
• Section 47, as substituted, allows a creditor, member or partner to apply where the professional has not reported preferential, undervalued, extortionate or fraudulent trading transactions, and permits the Adjudicating Authority to direct disciplinary action by the IBBI.

Practical Guidance

For creditors. File with complete supporting documents — invoices, ledgers, confirmations of balance, and an account of any credit or debit notes. A claim that omits adjustments the debtor’s books record is likely to be reduced on verification. If an admitted claim is revised downwards, raise it promptly with the professional in writing and, if unresolved, before the Adjudicating Authority; delay weakens the position once the process advances.

For resolution professionals. Record the basis of every admission and every revision, with reference to the documents relied on. Communicate a revision with reasons and allow the creditor to respond. Where the dispute is genuinely adjudicatory, place it before the Adjudicating Authority rather than deciding it.

For committees of creditors. Where a material revision changes voting shares, the change and its date should be minuted, since decisions taken on an incorrect list may be challenged.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an admitted claim be revised during CIRP?

Yes. Under Regulation 14(2), the resolution professional can revise the claim amount when relevant information becomes available, including documents showing previously undisclosed adjustments.

Can a resolution professional decide a disputed set-off?

Not generally. The professional may verify the claim against available records but should not adjudicate a genuinely disputed set-off, counterclaim or contractual dispute.

What can a creditor do if its claim is reduced?

The creditor can provide further documents and seek reconsideration by the resolution professional. If the dispute remains, it may approach the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of the IBC.

Does claim admission become final once the CoC is constituted?

No. Claim verification can continue where new information affects the amount. However, corrections should be based on evidence and made with reasons.

Legal Information Disclaimer

This article provides general information about Indian law as it stood on 16 September 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an advocate–client relationship. Statutes, rules and judicial interpretations change, and their application depends on the facts of each matter. Readers should consult the current official text of the laws and judgments cited and should not act on this information without advice specific to their circumstances. This article is published for legal awareness and education and is not intended to advertise or solicit professional work.

Sources / Authorities

1. Bharat Bhushan, Proprietor of Sai Traders v. Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd., NCLT, New Delhi Bench, Court VI — summary, IBC Laws
2. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 5(28), 18, 25, 30, 31, 35, 47, 60(5) (as amended) — IBBI – Legal Framework
3. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (No. 6 of 2026) — Gazette text (IBBI); Notification S.O. 2625(E) dated 22 May 2026 — IBBI
4. IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 — Regulations 12, 13, 14; IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 — Code of Conduct, First Schedule — IBBI – Regulations
5. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17; Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531; Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657; Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 INSC 102, Supreme Court of India