B P Kushwaha vs Max Heights Township And ...

IN THE MATTER OF: B. P. Kushwaha ...Appellant

Versus

Max Heights Township & Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Samvedna Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sethi, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

02.08.2024: I.A. No. 4961 of 2024: This is an application praying for

condonation of 9 days; delay in filing the Appeal. Learned counsel for the

Appellant submits that the although the order was pronounced on

29.04.2024, Resolution Professional sent email communicating passing of

order on 14.05.2024, hence, delay was caused in filing the appeal. Cause

shown sufficient to condone the delay. Delay condoned. I.A. No.4961 of 2024

is disposed of.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed

against order dated 29.04.2024 by which the Resolution Plan of the Corporate

Debtor has been approved. Appellant has filed a claim in Form F, claiming

interest by virtue of order passed by Haryana RERA Authority due to delayed

possession. Form F, which is at Annexure 5, its Column 4 is as follows:

Cont'd.../ 2

Interest on account of delay in

4. Description of claim delivery of possession of flat by (Including the amount of RERA Panchkula order dated the claim as at the 11/05/2022 (Enclosed) insolvency Total amount=23,51,316/-

commencement date) (including interest) as per RERA order dated 11/02/2022

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that claim of the Appellant

was accepted for Rs.23,51,316, however, in the Resolution Plan he has only

given 1% of the amount. She submits that the appellant is a homebuyer who

ought to have been included in the CoC and ought to have treated as

Unsecured Financial Creditor.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Appellant was

handed over possession of the unit and he cannot be treated in the category

of homebuyers and his claim in Form F was with regard to interest on account

of delay in delivery of possession which was by virtue of the order of RERA,

hence, claim was admitted as other creditors, which claim is other than

Financial Creditor and Operational Creditor and the Appellant cannot be

treated to be homebuyer.

5. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the

record.

6. Appellant who claims to be homebuyer, filed claim in Form F, hence, it

is not open for the Appellant to argue that he may be treated as Unsecured Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1365 of 2024 3

Financial Creditor. Appellant admittedly was not part of the CoC and at that

stage no issue was raised by the Appellant to include the Appellant in the

CoC. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Appellant having

filed claim as creditor in Form F, as per the Resolution Plan the amount has

been allocated. We do not find any ground to interfere with the Resolution

Plan which has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal is

dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1365 of 2024