Dinesh Gambhir & Another vs Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

In the matter of: Dinesh Gambhir & Anr. ....Appellants Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent (Through Nilesh Sharma- RP) For Appellant Mr. C.S. Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent Mr. Kanishk Khetan, Mr. Ashu Kansal, Mr. Akash Srivastava, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

09.05.2024: I.A. No. 2721 of 2024:- This is an application praying for

condonation of re-filing delay of 60 days. Reasons given in the application is

that the appeal was filed on 25.01.2024 and thereafter defects were

communicated more than once and time was taken to clear the defects. Delay

in re-filing is condoned.

I.A. No. 2845 of 2024:- This is an application praying for condonation of 11

days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken is that the order could be

uploaded only after 5 days and the appellant is a senior citizen was not well

and could consult his advocate which took some time. Cause shown sufficient.

Delay is condoned.

2

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 785 of 2024 :-

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.12.2023 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi,

Court-III by which order the Adjudicating Authority rejected IA No. 2953 of

2023 filed by the Appellant. Appellant has filed his claim before the Resolution

Professional on 05.03.2022 whereas Resolution Plan was approved by the

CoC on 12.08.2021. The Adjudicating Authority noticed the facts and relying

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s. R.P.S.

Infrastructure Limited vs. Mukul Kumar and Anr.- Civil Appeal No. 5590

of 2021" and dismissed the IA.

3. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has filed his

complaint before the NCDRC which was pending when the CIRP commences.

He further submits that the Resolution Professional is asking for exorbitant

interest from the Appellant. It is submitted that the interest which was

claimed by the Resolution Professional is unjustified.

4. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that the

Appellants are the persons who have been already handed over the possession

and they are residing in the units and their claims which were sought to be

filed is claim regarding compensation for delay in possession and other issues.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 785 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2721, 2845 of 2024 3

5. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the claim was filed by the Appellant after approval of the

plan by the CoC. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating

Authority rejecting the claim of the appellant by relying on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s. R.P.S. Infrastructure Limited vs.

Mukul Kumar and Anr.- Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021". Insofar as the

submission of the Appellant that the Resolution Professional has asked for

payment of exorbitant interest, it is always open for the Appellant to file an

appropriate application if any such letter or demand is made by the

Resolution Professional during pendency of the CIRP.

7. With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 785 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2721, 2845 of 2024