Chiranjib Sengupta vs Mis. Unibera Developers Private Ltd And ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Chiranjib Sengupta ...Appellant Versus Unibera Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Rupal Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Mr. Sagar Thakkar and Ms. Khyati Khemka, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.09.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 30.04.2025, by which,

I.A. No. 1199/2025, 1219/2025 & 1227/2025 filed by the appellant has been

rejected.

3. Counsel for the appellant has filed the IAs praying to accept the claim

in I.A. No. 1219/2025 and further to implead the application as party to the

proceeding and grant possession. Learned counsel for the applicant submits

that applicant who met with accident twice could not submit its claim within

the time and the claim could be filed along with the application. It is

submitted that claim could not be filed and applicant filed an I.A. seeking a direction to the resolution professional to accept and consider the claim of the

applicant on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has paid 94%

of the consideration for the unit in question and the applicant submits that

claim was filed along with the application which was filed before the

adjudicating authority.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the CIRP in

the present case commenced on 13.01.2023 and plan has been approved by

the CoC on 08.03.2024 and the applications were filed on 01.03.2025. It is

submitted that the payments which have been made by the applicant has

been already reflected in the Information Memorandum and applicant shall

be dealt with as per the resolution plan.

6. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

7. It is true that no claim was filed by the applicant and adjudicating

authority has rightly referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the matter of 'M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd.' Vs. 'Mukul Kumar & Anr.',

[Civil Appeal No. 5590/2021], which states that after approval of the plan

by CoC, no new claim can be accepted.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as far as the

payments made by the applicant which are reflected in the Information

Memorandum the applicant shall be dealt with as per the resolution plan.

The submission of the appellant that due to two accidents claim could not be

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1065 - 1067 of 2025 & I.A. Nos. 4171, 4172, 4173 of 2025 2 of 3 filed cannot be a ground to overlook the approval of the plan by the CoC the

filing of claim was only in the year 2025 along with the filing of the application

by the appellant claim to be submitted which has rightly not been considered.

9. We thus do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority

deciding the applications filed by the appellant. We, however, are of the view

that in view of the submissions of the respondent that applicant's claim shall

be considered as per the resolution plan, the appellant's amount reflected in

Information Memorandum be dealt as per resolution plan.

With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1065 - 1067 of 2025 & I.A. Nos. 4171, 4172, 4173 of 2025 3 of 3