Jitender Poriya & Others vs Anil Matta Rp Primrose Infratech Pvt Ltd ...

Jitender Poriya & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Anil Matta, RP Primrose Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Dr. Farrukh Khan, Ms. Aditi Tayal, Ms. Ridhima Goyal, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Ms. Diksha Dadu, Mr. Rajshree Choudhary, Advocates for SRA. Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Rishabh Govila, Mr. Srikant Singh, Advocates for RP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 18.10.2024: Heard Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Fernandes, Ld.

Sr. Counsel appearing for the SRA.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.08.2024 in IA No.

3325/2024 filed by the Appellant. In application, appellant has prayed for a

direction to admit their claim and prayed for following reliefs:

"a) Direct RP for inculcating and incorporating the names of Applicants as Homebuyers/Allottee in respect of their Flat/Units in the Porject titled as "Ryne" being developed and constructed by Corporate Debtor.

b) Direct the RP as well as the Successful Resolution Applicant/Respondent No. 2 to treat the Applicants as homebuyers in respect of their respective flats, details whereof are mentioned in para 3(Chart appended thereto) on the similar terms and conditions, which have been passed and approved by COC in respect to the other homebuyers Allottees.

2 c) Pass any such order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present matter".

3. The Resolution Plan with regard to Corporate debtor was approved in

the year 2020 and the claim was filed by the appellant in year 2024.

4. Adjudicating Authority relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in "M/S RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr.", Civil Appeal

No. 5590 of 2021 disposed of the application. Noticing the provision of the

Resolution Plan where benefit which shall be accrued to them as per terms of

the plan shall be extended at the stage of implementation of the plan.

5. Shri Fernandes, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the SRA also submits that in the

Resolution Plan with regard to those homebuyers who have not yet filed the

claims/or filed belatedly subject to the verification of the claim the amount

has been earmarked for taking care of the claims of the homebuyers. (Rs.

10.94 Crores kept aside).

6. Counsel for the SRA further relies on the Judgment of this Tribunal in

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1544 of 2024 in the matter of "Savita Dagar Solanki vs. One

City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." where the aforesaid plans clause18.4(v)

was referred. Ld. Counsel for SRA refers to clause 18.4(ix)/ 18.4(xxiv) of the

Resolution Plan.

7. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the appellant relies on the

judgment of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. K V Developers Pvt. Ltd.". It is

submitted that the claim of appellant be accepted.

8. We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority did not commit an error

in not accepting the claim which was filed after four years from approval of

the Resolution Plan by the CoC. However, as submitted by the Counsel for the 3

SRA the Resolution Plan contemplate those who have not filed/filed belatedly,

subject to verification shall be considered by SRA.

9. In view of the aforesaid clause of the resolution plan the appellants

claim may also be considered subject to verification while implementation of

the plan.

10. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) sr/nn