Manoj Roy Through Poa Holder Arun Roy vs Rabindri Mintri Resolution ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Dhiraj Sinha & Anr. ....Appellants

Vs.

Rabindra Mintri ....Respondent Resolution Professional of Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd. With Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 367 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF: Varun Chhabra & Anr. ....Appellants

Vs.

Rabindra Mintri ....Respondent Resolution Professional of Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd. With Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF: Manoj Roy ....Appellant Through Poa Holder Arun Roy

Vs.

Rabindra Mintri ....Respondent Resolution Professional of Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd. Present: For Appellant: Adv. Sadheer Aaryaan Sadanand and Adv. Abhay Pratap Singh. For Respondent: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Navpreet S. Ahluwalia, Mr. Adhish Sharma, Mr. Nitin Pandey, Mr. Aakash Khattar, Mr. Aditya Shukla, Ms. Heena Kochar, Mr. Akash Chatterjee, Advocates SRA Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Ms. Riya Thomas, Advocate for RP. With Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1046 of 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: Vijay Chhabra & Anr. ....Appellants Vs.

Resolution Professional of M/s Today Homes Noida India ....Respondent Ltd.

Present: For Appellants: Adv. Sadheer Aaryaan Sadanand and Adv. Abhay Pratap Singh. For Respondents: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Navpreet S. Ahluwalia, Mr. Adhish Sharma, Mr. Nitin Pandey, Mr. Aakash Khattar, Mr. Aditya Shukla, Ms. Heena Kochar, Mr. Akash Chatterjee, Advocates SRA Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Ms. Riya Thomas, Advocate for RP.

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 334 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF: Nitin Verma & Anr. ....Appellants

Vs.

Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. ....Respondents

Present: For Appellants: Ms. Preeti Tanya & Tausif Alam, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Navpreet S. Ahluwalia, Mr. Adhish Sharma, Mr. Nitin Pandey, Mr. Aakash Khattar, Mr. Aditya Shukla, Ms. Heena Kochar, Mr. Akash Chatterjee, Advocates SRA Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Ms. Riya Thomas, Advocate for RP.

ORDER

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain:

16.12.2022 This order shall dispose of five appeals bearing CA (AT)

(Ins.) No. 366 of 2022, 367 of 2022, 389 of 2022, 1046 of 2021 & 334 of

2022, as the issues involved in all these appeals are common.

2. In brief, Sunil Handa & Ors. (Financial Creditors) filed a petition

under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (In short 'Code') against Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), which was

admitted on 20.08.2019 and Ravindra Kumar Mintri was appointed as

Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and ultimately Resolution Professional

(RP). He invited the claims on 25.08.2019. The last date for the submission

of claim was 03.09.2019. The last version of Information Memorandum (IM)

was prepared on 15.01.2020. The resolution plan was submitted by the

consortium called One Group on 21.01.2020 and after certain modification

the final plan was submitted on 04.03.2020 which was approved on the

same date by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

3. We have been told that one SP Probuild LLP filed its claim on

16.06.2020 after approval of resolution plan by CoC on 04.03.2020. The

said claim was rejected by the RP on 19.04.2021. The Adjudicating

Authority dismissed the application of SP Probuild LLP and it met the same

fate before the Appellate Tribunal. However, still an appeal was filed by SP

Probuild LLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Civil Appeal No. 7907 of

2021 which too met the same fate.

4. In the present five appeals, there is one home buyer in each appeal

who is dissatisfied with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on

different dates on their respective applications by which they had challenged

the order of the RP who had rejected their claim. The list of the

Appellants,the date of filing of the claim before the RP, order of rejection of

the RP, the days of delay in filing the application before the RP, I.A. filed

before the Adjudicating Authority, decided by the Adjudicating Authority is

reproduced hereinbelow by way of a chart:

Case No. Appellant Date of filing Date of Delay in I.A. No. Decided On rejection days CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 'Mr. Dhiraj Sinha 12.10.2020 13.10.2020 405 4524 of 2020 25.08.2021 366 of 2022 & Ms. Namrata Sinha' CA (AT) (Ins.) No. Mr. Varun 12.10.2021 21.10.2021 770 534 of 2022 04.02.2022 367 of 2022 Chhabra & Ms. Manisha Verma CA (AT) (Ins) No. Mr. Manoj Roy 26.03.2021 31.03.2021 571 3706 of 2021 21.09.2021 389 of 2022 CA (AT) (Ins.) No. Mr. Vijay 14.09.2020 19.09.2020 379 4248 of 2021 25.08.2021 1046 of 2021 Chhabra & Mr. Shiv Chhabra CA (AT) (Ins) No. Mr. Nitin Verma 30.11.2021 30.11.2021 814 679 of 2022 11.02.2022 334 of 2022 & Ms. Rekha Sirohi Verma

5. These facts are not disputed by the parties, however, Counsel for the

Appellant has submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has committed an

error in dismissing the applications, relying upon the decision of this

Tribunal in the case of Mukul Kumar Vs. M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd., CA

(AT) (Ins) No. 1050 of 2020, to hold that claims lodged with the RP post

approval of the resolution plan, are not maintainable.

6. It is submitted that in the case of Puneet Kaur Vs. K. V. Developers

Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 390 of 2022, it has been held that the Resolution

Applicant shall prepare an addendum on the basis of information submitted

by the RP and place the same before the CoC within a period of one month.

It is also argued by Counsel for the Appellant that in SP Probuild LLP case it

was not a case of individual homebuyers but it was the case of builder who

was the owner of 41 flats.

7. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondents has referred to the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7907 of 2021

decided on 12.01.2022 to contend that in that case the Corporate Debtor

was the same and similar arguments were raised that since the claim has been rejected only by the CoC and not by the Adjudicating Authority,

therefore, the same can be looked into was rejected. The order of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court is reproduced as under:

"The Committee of Creditors has approved the Resolution Plan on 4 th March, 2020 whereas the appellant filed a claim on 16th June, 2020 which was rejected by the Resolution Professional on 19th April, 2021. The adjudicating authority dismissed the application filed by the appellant which was upheld by the appellate tribunal. Aggrieved by which this appeal has been filed. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submitted that as per Section 31 of the IPC, the Resolution Plan becomes final only after it is approved by the adjudicating authority. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Reported in (2021) 9 SCC 657. After examining the said judgment and after hearing Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

The appeal is dismissed.

All pending applications stand disposed of. However, the appellant is at liberty to pursue any other remedy, as available to him under the law."

8. In so far as, the decision in the case of Puneet Kaur (Supra) is

concerned, it is submitted that the facts of the said case are not similar to

the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the said case,

only direction was given that it shall be considered by the CoC and the

decision of the CoC shall be placed before the Adjudicating Authority while

considering the resolution plan.

9. We have heard counsel for the parties and after perusal of records are

of the considered opinion that in so far as these appeals are squarely

covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of SP

Probuild LLP (Supra) in which similar arguments were raised and rejected.

10. In view thereof, there is hardly any merit in the present appeals for

the purpose of interference and the same are dismissed. No Costs.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

Sheetal/RR