Mr. Rajkumar Jhawar & Anr & Ors vs Mr. Arun Kapoor & Ors & Ors

(Arising out of order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Mumbai in I.A. No. 3390/2024 in CP (IB) No. 2517/MB/2018)

In the matter of:

1. Mr. Rajkumar Jhawar R/o- Flat No. B 304, Tharwani Heritage, Plot No. 24, Sector 7, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, 410210.

2. Mrs. Shobha Jhawar R/o- Flat No. B 304, Tharwani Heritage, Plot No. 24, Sector 7, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, 410210. ...Appellants

Versus

1. Mr. Arun Kapoor Resolution Professional for Monarch Brookfields LLP G-601, Army Co-operative Housing Society, Sector- 09, Nerul (East), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400706 ...Respondent No.1

2. Planet Builders and Developers Resolution Applicant for Monarch Brookfields LLP, Arrayed through Arun Kapoor, Resolution Professional of Monarch Brookfields LLP

Having address at: G-601, Army Co-operative Housing Society, Sector-09, Nerul (East), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, 40070 ...Respondent No. 2

3. Committee of Creditors of Monarch Brookfields LLP Having address at: G-601, Army Co-operative Housing Society, Sector-09, Nerul (East), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400706 ...Respondent No. 3

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sonal Anand, Ms. Surbhi Singh, Mr. Aayush Sai, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kailash Ram, Ms. Srishti Agarwal, Ms. Mehak N., Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi, Ms. Mitali Yadav and Mr. Ankit Parashar, Advocates for R1/RP.

Mr. Sharad Agnihotri, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(30th June, 2026)

INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (T)

1. This appeal has been filed by Mr. Raj Kumar Jhawar and Mrs.

Shobha Jhawar (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellants'). The Appellants

who are the Flat buyers of Monarch Brookfields LLP (Corporate Debtor),

Page 2 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 are aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Ld. National

Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-II (Adjudicating Authority), in

I.A. No. 3390/2024, in C.P.(IB) No. 2517/MB/2018 whereby the

Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application of the Appellant for

excluding the Flat No. 1002 on the 10th Floor in "Vermont" Wing of project

of the Corporate Debtor, which was purchased by them, from the

resolution process of the Corporate Debtor.

2. The Appellants asserts that Mr. Arun Kapoor Resolution

Professional/Respondent No. 1 had failed to consider that the Appellant

had submitted all the documents through email to the RP on 11.06.2024

and RP vide email dated 12.06.2024 informed the Appellants that the

claim cannot be accepted as being submitted at a belated stage and since

the resolution plan has already been approved by the CoC and reserved

for orders by the Tribunal. The Appellants assert that the records of the

Corporate Debtor also reflect that they had a valid Builder-Buyer-

Agreement for the aforesaid flat and they had paid the full consideration

amount to the builder but the same was not taken into consideration by

the RP or the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by the impugned order

the Appellants have filed this appeal.

Brief facts of the case

3. The brief facts of the case are as given below:

i. The Appellants approached the Corporate Debtor expressing their

interest in purchasing a flat bearing Unit No. 1002 measuring

Page 3 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 70.32 Sq. Mtrs, On the 10th Floor in "Vermont" wing in the

project namely "Monarch Brookefields" situated at Plot no. 3,

Sector-20, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai developed by the Corporate

Debtor.

ii. The Corporate Debtor on 23.04.2012 entered into a Registered

Agreement for Sale bearing Registration no. 4264/2012 for a total

sale consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Two Lakhs

Only) which was fully paid by the Appellants prior to the

execution of the said agreement through online transaction made

from his HDFC Bank account to the Corporate Debtor's IDBI

account, which is evident from the certificate dated 24.09.2024

issued by the HDFC bank, confirming the payments made by the

Appellants to the Corporate Debtor. That pursuant to making the

entire payment of sale consideration in compliance with the terms

of the said agreement, the Appellants obtained the ownership

rights over the said flat.

iii. That as per Clause 16.1 of the Agreement for Sale, the Corporate

Debtor was duty bound to hand over the possession of the said

Flat to the Appellants, being the owners of the said Flat, within a

period of 36 months (3 years) + grace period of 90 days. However,

the Corporate Debtor failed to hand over possession of the said

to the Appellants within the stipulated period.

iv. That in the intervening period, an Application U/s 7 of the Code

was filed by Capri Global Capital Ltd. against the Corporate Page 4 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Debtor and pursuant to which the Hon'ble NCLT vide order dated

27.09.2019 initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

("CIRP") against the Corporate Debtor and appointed Shri S.

Gopalakrishnan as Interim Resolution Professional. Mr. Arun

Kapoor/Respondent No.1 was later appointed as the Resolution

Professional (RP) on 03.08.2021.

v. The Appellants at a later stage came to know that Respondent

No.2/Resolution Applicant had submitted a Resolution Plan,

which was approved by CoC and an application filed for approval

of the Resolution Plan was reserved for orders on 16.05.2024.

vi. Thereafter, the Appellants submitted their claim, though belatedly

via email on 11.06.2024 to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/- along with

interest w.e.f. 02.02.2015 till the date of payment at the rate of

24% to the Respondent No.1. However, the Respondent No.1 vide

email dated 12.06.2024 informed the Appellants that the claim

cannot be accepted as being submitted at a belated stage, since

the resolution plan has already been approved by the CoC and

reserved for orders by the Tribunal. The Resolution Plan was later

approved by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 27.08.2024.

vii. Thereafter, the Appellants file an interlocutory Application

bearing IA No. 3390/2024 before the Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai

Bench in June 2024 seeking directions to be passed to the

Respondents to jointly, severally or individually exclude the Flat

No. 1002 on the 10th Floor in "Vermont" from the aforesaid Page 5 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 project of the Corporate Debtor from the resolution process. The

said Application filed by the Appellants was dismissed by the

Hon'ble NCLT vide Order dated 21.11.2024 on the ground that

no person can be held entitled to initiate or continue any

proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the

resolution plan.

viii. M/s Planet Builder and Developers who are the Successful

Resolution Applicants are arrayed as the Respondent No.2.

The Committee of Creditors of Monarch Brookfields LLP has been

arrayed as Respondent no.3 in this appeal.

Submissions of the Appellant:

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submits that owing to old age-related

ailments, heart conditions, and COVID-19 pandemic health decline as

also the ironical yet 'normal' delays in real estate projects, the Appellants

remained unaware of the aforesaid CIRP proceedings until early June,

2024. Subsequently, the Appellants forthwith submitted their claim after

learning about the aforesaid CIRP proceedings via email on 11.06.2024 to

the tune of Rs.42,00,000/- claiming the flat to the Respondent No.1.

However, the Respondent No.1 vide email dated 12.06.2024 rejected the

claim of the Appellants.

5. Consequently, the Appellants filed an interlocutory Application

bearing I.A. No. 3390/2024 before the Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench on

15.06.2024 seeking directions to be passed to the Respondents to jointly,

Page 6 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 severally or individually exclude the Flat No. 1002 on the 10th Floor in

"Vermont" from the aforesaid project of the Corporate Debtor from the

resolution process. That while pendency of the said application filed by

the Appellants, the Ld. NCLT without deciding the aforesaid Application,

approved the Resolution Plan vide Order dated 27.08.2024. Thereafter,

the Application bearing I.A. No. 3390 of 2024 was dismissed by the Ld.

NCLT vide Order dated 21.11.2024. Thus, compelling the Appellants to

approach this Hon'ble Tribunal.

6. Ld. Counsel submits that it was the categorical stand of the RP

before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority that he is unable to trace any record

evidencing receipt of the sale consideration under the Agreement to Sell

in the account of the Corporate Debtor. This fact has been duly noted in

the impugned order.

7. Ld. Counsel further highlights that there exists a material

contradiction in the stand taken by Respondent No. 2/ the Resolution

Professional before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and before this Hon'ble

Tribunal in relation to the payments made by the Appellants. Before this

Hon'ble Tribunal, the RP has alleged a discrepancy in the payments made

by the Appellants and in contrast, before the Ld. NCLT, the RP

categorically contended that he was unable to trace any record evidencing

receipt of the sale consideration under the Agreement to Sell in the

account of the Corporate Debtor. These are two entirely inconsistent

positions and demonstrate clear inefficiency and negligence on the part of

the Resolution Professional.

Page 7 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

8. It is submitted by the Appellant during the course of arguments,

when this Appellate Tribunal posed a query to the RP as to what exactly

he had done viz-a-viz Registered ATS dated 23.04.2012 executed in favour

of the Appellants and in respect to the same and directed him to file an

Affidavit. Pursuant to the same, the RP filed an Affidavit dated 29.08.2025

along with additional documents (filed on 01.09.2025) and the stand

taken by the RP in his affidavit is below: -

"...2. I say that the erstwhile IRP, Mr. S. Gopalakrishnan had created a data room on the basis of information in his possession. From a perusal of the said data room it is reflected that the IRP was aware of the agreement to sell executed in favour of Mr. Raj Kumar Jhawar. A copy of the extract of the said data room is attached herewith as ANNEXURE - A..."

9. The RP by way of the Additional documents filed on 01.09.2026

contends that one, Mr. Amit Kirplani has been allotted the same unit prior

in time. The ICICI bank statement shows actual debit of Rs.44,48,500/-

from Kirpalani's account to "Monarch Brookfields," evidencing payment

flow to the Corporate Debtor. Further, Mr. Kirpalani filed Form CA on

24.11.2019 as a financial creditor in the homebuyer class, claiming

Rs.2,58,27,137/- (principal plus interest) based on those allotment letters

and payments. RP contends that Mr. Kirpalani's claim is supported by

allotment letters (admittedly not registered), banking trail, and timely

claim filing at the start of CIRP, which is used to justify inclusion of

Kirpalani's claim vis-à-vis the Appellants.

10. Ld. Counsel submits that the entire narrative surrounding Mr. Amit

Kriplani was never propounded before the Ld. NCLT by the RP, nor were

Page 8 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 any supporting documents in respect thereof placed on record and it is

only before this Appellate Tribunal that the Resolution Professional has,

for the first time, disclosed the alleged transaction. Further the said Mr.

Kriplani has purchased two units which prima facie show him to be an

investor; The "Letter of Reservation" of Mr. Kriplani itself says "On

completion of one year from the date of this allotment letter, the allotee shall

have the option to receive effective the date of this letter, the premium @ 2%

per month in lieu of the amount invested by him or may retain the said flat

and pay the additional charges as agreed in this allotment letter." leaving

no doubt he is an investor who had availed the scheme of assured

return/buy back and is not a home buyer at all. The said Mr. Kriplani is

in any case only seeking return of money with interest and claims only

"security" in the flat. Most importantly his agreements are not registered

vis-à-vis the Appellant who has a registered agreement to sell in his

favour.

11. Appellant further submitted that he was sanctioned a home loan of

Rs.30,00,000/- by SBI, of which Rs.20,96,375/- was actually disbursed

via cheque, forming part of the payments identified by the RP. He

expressly accepts the RP's computation that the total amount paid is

Rs.65,72,000/- (as per RP's table below para 3(c) of RP's affidavit).

Appellant clarifies that agreed flat cost is Rs.42,00,000/- and therefore,

out of Rs.65,72,000/- paid, an excess of Rs.23,72,000/- was to be

refunded by the builder or adjusted. He states that after SBI disbursal, he

followed up through the broker; the broker assured that excess would be

adjusted towards other charges/registration at possession and balance, if Page 9 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 any, refunded. The Appellant also states that he has paid all EMIs and

the loan now stands cleared. The Appellant points out that the SBI loan

was already disclosed before the Hon'ble NCLT and the sanction letter

dated 08.06.2012 and arrangement letter are on record and the same is

extracted below:-

"...6. That it is further apposite to note that in order to pay the balance consideration out of the total sum of Rs. 42 Lakhs, the Applicants had also applied for a Medium - Term Loan of Rs.30 Lakhs from State Bank of India (SBI) vide application on 05.05.2012, which was sanctioned by SBI on 08.06.2012. Thus, the Applicants had not only invested their life time savings, but had also applied for loans in order to purchase the said flat. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT - "C" is a copy of the Sanction Letter dated 08.06.2012 along with the arrangement letter..."

12. The Appellant clarifies that in the present appeal he is claiming

treatment as a homebuyer and allotment of the flat for Rs.42,00,000/- i.e.,

the contractual apartment price and for the remaining Rs.23,72,000/-

(excess over flat cost), he states he will file a separate claim and/or pursue

appropriate remedies in law.

13. The Appellants contend that, on the admitted facts, they fall

squarely within Category A of the Resolution Plan (payments towards flats

with valid CC / approvals and registered agreements), whereas Mr.

Kriplani's claim, if at all, falls only within Category B (payments supported

by verified allotment letters) and yet the RP has ignored the rights already

accrued in favour of the Appellant, which is per se arbitrary and

discriminatory.

Page 10 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

14. The Appellant submits that in his case the RP has asserted that a

registered ATS does not create any right in his favour. However, he has

recognised and admitted the claim of Mr. Amit Kriplani on the strength of

mere unregistered reservation / allotment letters and rejected the claim of

the Appellants inter alia on the ground that a Registered ATS does not

create any right, which is intrinsically illogical and contrary to the settled

legal position that a registered agreement ranks higher than an informal,

unregistered allotment letter. The Appellants emphasise that, in law, a

registered Agreement to Sell, duly reflecting the transaction in the data

room, must carry greater evidentiary weight than an unregistered

reservation letter, and therefore, if anyone was to be preferred, it ought to

have been the Appellants and not Mr. Kriplani. The complete absence of

any reference to the prior alleged allotment in favour of Mr. Kriplani in the

proceedings and submissions before NCLT, and the fact that his

documents surfaced only at the appellate stage, shows complete

inefficiency, lack of transparency and after-thought on the part of the RP.

15. The Appellant submits that in regard to alleged discrepancies in

payment, the Appellants have filed an affidavit explaining the structure

and timing of payments, including the interim self-funding and

subsequent SBI loan disbursal. He submits that while the total

remittances are Rs.65.72 lakh, their present claim for homebuyer

treatment is confined to the contractual flat price of Rs.42 lakh. It is their

submission that even the RP does not dispute that at least about Rs.6.75

lakh is recorded as paid under the ATS, which itself suffices to give the

Page 11 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Appellants the status of allottees entitled to lodge their claim and also to

get their claim admitted.

16. Ld. Counsel submits that the RP has taken mutually inconsistent

stands regarding the Appellants' claim--ranging from non-existence, to

delay, to partial admission of payments--thereby exposing negligence and

inefficiency. RP's shifting stand on payments, from inability to trace any

record to admitting RTGS credits and payments under ATS, undermines

his credibility and evidences failure to reconcile records. RP claims notices

were sent to all allottees, he has failed to produce any proof of

communication to the Appellants, unlike in other cases, demonstrating

negligence.

17. Ld. Counsel submits that it is not in dispute that the Appellants had

an Agreement to Sell dated 23.04.2012 which was registered in their

favour. It is further now duly admitted by the RP that an amount of

Rs.65,72,000/-stands duly paid by the Appellants. That it is the stand of

the Appellant that they are as such only claiming right of flats towards

which the total consideration of Rs.42 lakhs which has been duly paid by

them and they are not raising any claim for the balance amount of

approximately 23 lakhs. Further, the Appellants squarely falls within

category A of the resolution plan approved vide Order dated 27.08.2024

which is approved by the Ld. NCLT.

18. Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellants have explained the alleged

discrepancies and confined their claim to Rs.42 lakh, and even the RP

admits at least Rs. 6.75 lakh paid under ATS, which suffices to establish

Page 12 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 their status as allottees. Despite the Appellants' name and registered ATS

being part of the data room from inception, no steps were taken to verify

or process their claim, evidencing dereliction of duty. Only upon directions

of this Hon'ble Tribunal RP disclosed data-room extracts, bank entries,

and contradictions, exposing serious lapses and discriminatory

treatment, placing the Appellants' lifetime savings at risk.

19. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Appellants, despite investing

their lifetime savings and holding a registered ATS, stand deprived of both

flat and money due to the manner in which their claim was handled. The

delay in filing a claim is attributable to the RP's failure to notify and

process their rights, and cannot be used to deny relief.

20. Ld. Counsel submits that the case reflects grave hardship to

homebuyers, where despite registered ATS and payments, negligence of

RP and failure of NCLT to decide pending applications has caused serious

prejudice. The Appellants cannot be made to suffer the consequences of

the RP's negligence and be rendered remediless.

21. In light of the above facts and circumstances, Ld. Counsel seeks

intervention of this Appellate Tribunal to prevent grave injustice and a

complete miscarriage of justice by correcting the errors that have occurred

in the conduct of the CIRP and by ensuring that the Appellants' legitimate

rights as genuine homebuyers are effectively protected. Thus, it is humbly

prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the present

Appeal and grant the Appellants appropriate relief under the Resolution

Plan.

Page 13 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Submission of Respondent No. 1/Resolution Professional

22. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/RP submits that the present

Appeal arises out of the Impugned Order dated 21st November 2024

passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench, whereby IA No. 3390 of 2024

filed by the Appellants seeking exclusion of Unit No.1002 was dismissed

on well-reasoned and legally sustainable ground. The Impugned Order

records that the Appellants had no ownership rights, no conveyance deed

was executed, possession was never handed over, and their claim did not

form part of the approved Resolution Plan. It was rightly held that no

proceedings can be initiated for claims not forming part of the approved

Plan.

23. Ld. Counsel reiterated that the Appellants were never declared

owners, their claim was not admitted in CIRP, and they approached the

Resolution Professional nearly three years after CoC approval, seeking to

unsettle a concluded process. The Information Memorandum did not

include the Appellants' claim, and there is no record of their alleged

payments. Claims not part of the Resolution Plan stand extinguished, and

there is an admitted delay of 1357 days in filing the claim.

24. Ld. Counsel for RP submits that the Appellants approached the

Resolution Professional only after the Resolution Plan was approved by

the CoC and reserved for orders by NCLT. He submits that CIRP

commenced on 27 November 2019. The Resolution Plan was approved by

the CoC on 19 November 2021. The Appellants filed their claim only on

11 June 2024, which was rejected as belated. Subsequently IA No.

Page 14 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 3390/2024 was filed on 15 June 2024; the Plan was approved on 27

August 2024; IA was dismissed on 21 November 2024; and this appeal

was filed on 19 December 2024. This shows gross delay and negligence,

with no grounds for condonation.

25. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Appellants never challenged

the IM and are now barred by estoppel. Their financial claims contain

serious discrepancies: from Rs.6,75,625/- in the Agreement to

Rs.42,00,000/- and later Rs.65,72,000/-, including admission of excess

payment. Such inconsistencies undermine the claim. The Corporate

Debtor's books do not reflect these payments; some payments are by third

parties and prior to the Agreement, raising doubts about the nature of the

transaction and their status as homebuyers.

26. Ld. Counsel for RP submits that Another claimant, Mr. Amit

Kriplani, filed a timely claim for the same unit, which was admitted.

Entertaining the Appellants' belated claim would prejudice the Resolution

Plan and settled claims.

27. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Resolution Plan was approved

unanimously by the CoC, and its commercial wisdom is paramount and

non-justiciable. Upon approval under Section 31, the Plan is binding on

all stakeholders. No claims outside the Plan can be entertained. The

Contingent Provision Fund of Rs.50,00,000/- cannot be used to revive

belated private claims; it is limited to unforeseen statutory liabilities.

28. Ld. Counsel reiterated that in light of the above The Appellants

failed to act despite multiple opportunities and raised claims only at the

Page 15 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 final stage. There is no perversity in the Impugned Order warranting

interference.

Submission of Respondent No.2/Successful Resolution

Applicant(SRA)

29. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the present Appeal

is misconceived, legally untenable and an attempt to reopen issues that

have attained finality upon approval of the Resolution Plan. The

Appellants seek to disrupt the sanctity of a resolution plan under the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, by raising belated claims after

conclusion of the CIRP.

30. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Impugned Order correctly

rejected the belated claim, noting failure to justify the delay and that

permitting such claims would defeat the object of the Code. The Impugned

Order warrants no interference as it suffers from no illegality or perversity.

He places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Frontline Corporation Ltd. (2023) SCC OnLine

SC 470" and "RPS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar, (2023) INSC

816", which holds that a Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be faced

with undecided claims post approval, as it would create uncertainty and

defeat the IBC framework.

31. Ld. Counsel submitted that Adjudicating Authority has considered

all issues and rightly exercised discretion in rejecting the Appellants'

claims for want of any plausible explanation for delay. No illegality or

Page 16 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 prejudice is made out. He relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in

"Pralhad Hage vs. Shyam Srirur" (2021) SCC OnLine NCLAT 4114".

32. Ld. Counsel further submits that IBC is a time-bound process

ensuring finality. Post approval, the process must attain closure and the

Appeal deserves dismissal with costs as it seeks to unsettle a concluded

CIRP.

33. Ld. Counsel reiterated that The Appellants filed claims on 11 June

2024, after CoC approval. No explanation is provided. Their claims were

not part of the Information Memorandum as no payments were made to

the Corporate Debtor. It is settled that no surprise or belated claims can

be entertained as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "CoC of Essar

Steel vs. Satish Kumar, (2020) 8 SCC 531" and judgment of this Appellate

Tribunal in "Calyx Chemicals & Pharma vs. Ravindra N Athawale, CA (AT)

(Ins) No. 522 of 2024". The Resolution Plan was unanimously approved by

the CoC in its commercial wisdom, which cannot be interfered with "Ebix

Singapore vs. CoC of Educomp, (2022) 2 SCC 401". The SRA cannot be

saddled with claims outside the Plan.

34. Ld. Counsel submitted that the claims were neither recorded in the

Information Memorandum nor challenged. The SRA acted in good faith

based on available records. Allowing such claims would prejudice

Respondent No. 2, who has already commenced implementation.

Implementation is at an advanced stage and reopening CIRP would

disrupt revival. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "RPS Infrastructure

vs. Mukul Kumar, (2023) 10 SCC 718" and "Sneha Kore vs. Arun Kapoor,

Page 17 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 2019 of 2024" no new claims can be admitted post

approval, nor can the Plan be modified.

35. Ld. Counsel further submits that Upon approval under Section 31,

the Resolution Plan attains finality and binds all stakeholders. Claims not

forming part of the Plan stand extinguished, ensuring certainty and a

clean slate. Ld. Counsel reiterated that the Appellants failed to prove any

payment to the Corporate Debtor and have not challenged this finding.

Their reliance on judgment of this Tribunal "Puneet Kaur vs. KV

Developers, (2022) SCC OnLine NCLAT 245" is misplaced, as their claims

are not reflected in the books.

36. Ld. Counsel submitted that the contingent provision fund under

Clause 5.3 of Resolution Plan cannot be used to revive unverified private

claims. The SRA cannot be burdened with indeterminate liabilities. The

conduct of the Appellants disentitles them from equitable relief. Despite

opportunities, they failed to act during CIRP and approached only at a

belated stage.

37. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the circumstances, no perversity or

illegality is demonstrated in the Impugned Order, which aligns with

settled law. Accordingly, the Appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be

dismissed.

Page 18 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Analysis and findings

38. We have heard both the parties in detail, gone through the

voluminous records of the case and also seen the written submissions of

Appellants as well as Respondents.

39. The Appellants contended that they had booked Flat No. 1002 in

the project "Monarch Brookefields" promoted by the Corporate Debtor vide

registered Agreement to Sale dated 23.04.2012 for Rs. 42,00,000/- and

consequently became owners of the said flat, which was taken during

CIRP proceedings. They submitted that CIRP was initiated pursuant to an

application under Section 7 of the Code filed by Capri Global Capital Ltd.,

and that they filed their claim on 11.06.2024 before approval of the

Resolution Plan. The delay in filing the claim was due to the fact that the

CIRP of CD was conducted during the Covid period and due to ill health

and old age they could not go out and were unaware of CIRP. They did not

get any information about CIRP from any source. The Appellants

contended that they fall within Category A of the Resolution Plan and that

the RP acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily in ignoring their rights while

including Mr. Kriplani's claim, who is merely an investor with unregistered

allotment letters and a buy-back/assured return scheme. They further

contended that the RP introduced the case of Mr. Kriplani for the first time

before this Tribunal without placing it before the Adjudicating Authority,

and that there are material contradictions in the RP's stand regarding the

Appellants' payments, demonstrating inefficiency and negligence.

Page 19 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

40. Per contra, Respondent No. 1/RP contended that the Appellants

have no ownership rights in the subject unit as no conveyance deed was

executed and possession was never handed over, and their claim did not

form part of the approved Resolution Plan. It was further contended that

the Appellants' claim was hopelessly belated and could not be entertained

after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, with the Adjudicating

Authority having already reserved the matter for final order. The RP

justified inclusion of Mr. Kriplani's claim on the basis of allotment letters,

banking trail, and timely filing of Form CA in 2019, supported by ICICI

bank statements evidencing payment to the Corporate Debtor. The RP also

raised discrepancies in the Appellants' documents, including

inconsistencies between payments and the Agreement to Sell,

unexplained excess payments, and timing of loan sanction, thereby

casting doubt on the genuineness of the Appellants' claim and their status

as homebuyers.

41. It is necessary to reiterate the critical dates and events necessary

for adjudication of the present dispute. The Corporate Debtor was

admitted in CIRP by the order of Ld. Adjudicating Authority dated

22.09.2019. Initially Shri S. Gopalakrishnan was appointed as IRP and

later on he was substituted by Mr. Arun Kapoor who is the Respondent

No.1. The Appellants had filed their claim through email on 11.06.2024

to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/- which was rejected by the RP vide email

dated 12.06.2024 on grounds of delay in filing claim. Aggrieved from the

same Appellants filed an interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No.

3390/2024 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 15.06.2024. Page 20 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 However, during the pendency of this I.A., Ld. Adjudicating Authority had

approved the Resolution Plan submitted by RP on 27.08.2024 without

disposing the I.A. filed by the Appellants. Subsequently IA 3390/2024 was

dismissed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 21.11.2024

on the ground that no person can be held entitled to initiate or continue

any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution

plan.

42. RP in his pleadings before the NCLT had stated that he is unable

to trace any record evidencing receipt of the sale consideration under

the Agreement to Sell in the account of the Corporate Debtor. The

relevant extract of para-17 of the Impugned Order dated 21.11.2024,

which records the submissions of the RP w.r.t the payments made by

the Appellants is reproduced below: -

"...17. On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 contents that he has been unable to locate any record demonstrating the payment of sale consideration under the Agreement for sale into any account of the Corporate Debtor and there are apparent inconsistencies in the bank statements produced by the Applicants and the amounts stated in the Agreement for sale. Respondent No.1 also doubted whether the Corporate Debtor had maintained any bank account with HDFC Bank to which the Applicants are stated to have transferred the funds. Respondent No. 1 further submits that the Applicants submitted their claim on 11.06.2024 long after the date specified for submission of claims against the Corporate Debtor. By the time the Applicants submitted the claim, the Resolution Plan submitted by the Respondent No. 2 had already been voted upon by the CoC and the Application seeking approval of the Resolution Plan was heard by the Page 21 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Tribunal and reserved for orders. Since the claim was rejected by Respondent No. 1 on account of undue delay, the Applicants have preferred the present application on the ground that said Flat does not form part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and sought exclusion of the said Flat from the CIRP and Resolution Plan. The counsel for Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the Resolution Plan, which was reserved for approval before this Tribunal, was eventually approved on 27.08.2024. In the circumstances, the application filed by the applicants is liable to be dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)

43. This submission of RP that no such payments were made by the

Appellant weighed heavily in the mind of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

It was on the basis of the same that claim of the Appellant was dismissed

by the Adjudicating Authority.

44. During the hearing before this Tribunal on 12.08.2025 we directed

RP to file an affidavit giving comprehensive details of payment received

from the appellant, the extract of the order is given below:

"4. Without getting into the merit of the preliminary submissions of the counsels for the RP, this Tribunal only requires the RP to file an affidavit as to what exactly he had done viz-a-viz a sale agreement dated 23.04.2012. He requires to get into the factual details which the appellant relies on such as bank remittance made by the appellant into the IDFC account of the CD from the HDFC account of the appellant as evidenced by bank statements available at Page No. 122 of the appeal. RP while submitting his affidavit, his attention is not limited to what the appellant has provided but he can go beyond."

Page 22 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

45. Pursuant to the same, the RP has filed an Affidavit dated

29.08.2025 The relevant paras 2,3 & 5 of the Affidavit are extracted below:

...2. I say that the erstwhile IRP, Mr. S. Gopalakrishnan had created a data room on the basis of information in his possession. From a perusal of the said data room it is reflected that the IRP was aware of the agreement to sell executed in favour of Mr. Raj Kumar Jhawar. A copy of the extract of the said data room is attached herewith as ANNEXURE - A...

....3. a. ATS dated 23.04.2012 records at para 1.4 that Rs. 6,75,625 had been paid as on the date of the agreement and the balance Rs. 35,24,375 was yet to be paid.

....c. I say that the Appellant has also filed certain receipts along with the present appeal which are at page 123-127 of the appeal. As per the said receipts the following amounts were paid:

S.No. Receipt No. & Particulars Amount Date 1. Receipt No. 182 RTGS dated Rs.6,75,625/- dated 03.05.2012 13.04.2012 2. Receipt No. 359 Cheque no.445599 Rs.20,96,375/- dated 04.01.2014 dated 06.08.2012 drawn on SBI Vashi 3. Receipt No. 360 Cheque/DD no. Rs.5,00,000/- dated 04.01.2014 716329 dated 12.04.2012 drawn on HDFC Vashi 4. Receipt No. 361 RTGS dated Rs.3,00,000/- dated 04.01.2014 13.04.2012 5. Receipt No. 362 RTGS dated Rs.30,00,000/- dated 04.01.2014 13.04.2012

Total Rs.65,72,000/-

....d. I say that the cumulative total of all these receipts come out to Rs. 65,72,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lacs Seventy-two Thousand Only) whereas the total claim of the Appellant is for Rs.

Page 23 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 42,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Two Lacs Only). The contradiction shows that the Appellant is trying to create the illusion of payment of money to the CD whereas from the documents it is not reflected that the said amount of money has been paid for the purchase of a flat from the CD. It seems that the amount has been paid for some extraneous reasons to the CD and the agreement for sale is merely an eyewash to siphon off the money from the CD...

...5. I say that the IRP had shared specific information with all such persons whose names and payments information were reflected in the books of accounts of the CD. The same is evident from the WhatsApp communications between Chandra Tahiliani, one of the alleged Homebuyers, and the IRP wherein the IRP had sought specific information from her regarding one flat. Similarly, a letter dated 23.06.2020 was sent to Mr. Jai Kumar Rai, one of the homebuyers, similar communications to all the other persons, including the Appellant herein, whose names and payments information were duly reflected in the books of accounts of the CD. However, since the Deponent herein was appointed as the substituted RP on 03.08.2021 and since it is not mandatory, under the applicable regulations, to keep the record of such communications, it has now become practically impossible for the Deponent to trace all such communications. The two specific communications mentioned hereinabove were also taken from the two separate appeals filed by those homebuyers, i.e., Ms. Chandra Tahiliani v. Planet Builders & Developers & Anr. (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 314 of 2025) and Jai Kumar Rai & Anr. v. Arun Kapoor (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1179 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4211 of 2024). The copy of the WhatsApp communications between Chandra Tahiliani and IRP and the letter dated 23.06.2020 sent to Mr. Jai Kumar Rai are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE - B..."

46. We observe from the Affidavit of RP dated 29.08.2025, that there

exists a material contradiction in the stand taken by Respondent No.

1/the Resolution Professional before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and

Page 24 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 before this Appellate Tribunal in relation to the payments made by the

Appellants. Before this Appellate Tribunal, the RP has alleged a

discrepancy in the payments made by the Appellants, but in contrast,

before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority the RP categorically contended that

he was unable to trace any record evidencing receipt of the sale

consideration under the Agreement to Sell in the account of the Corporate

Debtor. These are two entirely inconsistent positions and demonstrate

clear inefficiency and negligence on the part of the Resolution

Professional. Further, RP had stated that communications were sent to

all homebuyers but he could not produce a single document showing any

communication to Appellants.

47. In his affidavit the RP has also furnished the extract of Virtual Data

Room (VDR) record relating to flat No. 1002 in Vermont Wing of the

project. The relevant portion of the data room is extracted below: -

S.No. Wing Unit Date of Registrati Name of the Flat Name No. Registration on Owner Number

36. Vermont 1002 23.04.2012 4264 Rajkumar Anandaram Jhawar & Shobha Jhawar

48. From the virtual data room records, we note that Unit No. 1002

Vermont was registered in the name of Rajkumar Anandaram Jhawar &

Shobha Jhawar, the Appellants herein and the said agreement to sale

was registered on 23.04.2012 vide Registration No. 4264. So, it is clear

from the records of the CD, which was provided to the SRA also, that Unit

No. 1002 was allotted and agreement to sale was registered in favour of

Appellants. RP has accepted in his affidavit that IRP was aware of the

Page 25 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 aforesaid agreement to sell executed in favour of Mr. Rajkumar Jhawar.

It is shocking to say the least that this fact was not brought before the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority by the RP or the SRA. It is to be noted herein

that VDR data forms the basis for preparation of Information

Memorandum and it is shared with Prospective Resolution Applicants so

that they could incorporate the Data in their Resolution Plan.

49. The RP through Additional Documents dated 01.09.2025 had

placed the Letter of Reservation of Mr. Amit Kriplani dated 24.10.2011.

The letter of reservation is extracted below:

Page 26 of 44

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Page 27 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Page 28 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Page 29 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

50. We note from the aforesaid letter of reservation that Flat No. 1002

in Vermont Wing of the project Monarch Brookefields was reserved in

favour of Mr. Amit Kriplani and Mrs. Mini Kriplani, who are Non-Resident

Indians residing in USA, on 24.10.2011. The details of payments are

given in the said letter. More importantly, the letter clearly mentions that

on completion of one year from the date of this allotment letter, the

allottee shall have option to receive effective the date of this letter, the

premium @ 2% per month in lieu of the amount invested by him or may

retain the said flat and pay the additional charges as agreed in this

allotment letter. We further note that the Kriplanis' had no agreement to

sale registered in their favour; they only had a letter of reservation for the

aforesaid flat. This makes them investors in the project and not genuine

home buyers.

51. We now take notice of the claim filed by Kriplanis in the CIRP of

the CD vide Form CA dated 24.11.2019 submitted by Mr. Amit Kriplani.

The Form CA is extracted below:

Page 30 of 44

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Page 31 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Page 32 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

52. We note from the above claim form, that the Kriplanis filed a claim

for two flats for which they had deposited the money and sought the claim

amount along with interest, the total claim being Rs.2,58,27,137/-. It is

absolutely clear from the above that Kriplanis never sought the possession

of the flat for which they had made reservation. They only made a claim

for refund of their payment with interest. On the contrary the Appellants

have only insisted upon the possession of their allotted flat.

53. From the above, we note that Mr. Kriplani holds only an allotment

letter for two units including Unit No. 1002, Vermont. Whereas the

Appellants possess a registered Agreement to Sell in their favour for the

Unit 1002, Vermont placing them on a higher pedestal as a homebuyer.

The Kriplanis status on the other hand appears to be that of a speculative

investor, who is only seeking return of money with interest and claims

only "security" in the flat.

54. In this regard we also take note of the judgement of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the Mansi Brar Fernandes Vs. Shubha Sharma & Anr.

[CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3826 OF 2020] (2025 INSC 1110), wherein Hon'ble

SC defined the meaning of Speculative Investor as follows:

"18.4.3. Pioneer Urban (supra), in para 56, defines a speculative investor as one who intends to evade possession and "jump ship", or one who is not genuinely interested in purchasing a flat / apartment. Any allottee, who, from the inception of the agreement, does not intend to take possession, or who later abandons such intent, falls within

Page 33 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 this category. Such an allottee is primarily concerned with refund or profit, and not with completion of the project.

18.4.4. Thus, the determination of whether an allottee is a speculative investor, must be holistic, having regard to the terms of the agreement, the allotment letter, the payment terms, and the overall conduct of the allottee."

55. Intention to possess a dwelling unit remains the sine qua non of

a genuine homebuyer's intent. Based on the criteria laid down by the

Mansi Brar (Supra) and the documents on record, we are of the view

that the deposit made by the Kriplanis for Flat No. 1002, Vermont Wing

of the Monarch Brookefields Project can be classified as made for

investment purpose.

56. In the present case the Information Memorandum was prepared

based on the books of accounts, records and information available in

the Virtual Data Room (VDR) with the Interim Resolution Professional

and constituted the basis upon which prospective resolution applicants

formulated their resolution plans. All Prospective Resolution Applicants

have full access to the VDR, as the Resolution plans are based on data

made available in the VDR and Information Memorandum. We have

seen from the affidavit of the RP that the VDR did have the details of

the allocation of the flat in favour of the Appellants, still the same was

not considered for inclusion in the Resolution plan. Non-inclusion of

such claim reflected in CD's Records is due to lapse on the part of RP

and SRA. The Appellants cannot be held responsible for the same.

Page 34 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

57. The appellants had stated that they did not come to know of the

insolvency due to Covid period and old age-related ailments. As soon as

they came to know of the CIRP, they filed their claim. However, the RP

rejected their claim very next day on account of delay. As the period of

CIRP was almost entirely during Covid, we find merit in the submission

of the Appellants. The Respondents in spite of the claim of Appellants

figuring in the records of the CD, did not perform due diligence and

treat the same in Resolution plan.

58. An important point to be noted here is that in a real estate

insolvency involving homebuyers, the status of housing every unit is

the key decision point as to whether the unit is already sold by CD. If

already sold, then is it is fully paid up; or partly paid up. The other

category would be unsold units. Based on this information a PRA would

prepare his resolution plan.

59. The Resolution Plan has categorized the treatment of different

categories of homebuyers on the basis of documents. The relevant extract

of the Resolution Plan is produced below:

Category A

Payments received towards flat These home buyers have to pay with valid CC and approvals and Escalation Charges as mentioned having registered agreements. in Annexure 'I' with the schedule of payment as described in Annexure 'J'.

The Home buyers who have paid up to 70% of their agreement value will have to pay the balance amount as per the construction linked schedule.

Page 35 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 The home buyers, who have paid below 70% of their agreement value shall have to complete up to 70% of their agreement value within 30 days from the approval date and balance as per construction-linked schedule.

Category B

i) Payments received towards the These home buyers and shop flats with CC and approvals and buyers are proposed to be paid having verified allotment letters. 60% of the admitted principal at the end of the plan ie. T+ 730 days.

ii) Payments received towards the flats which were approved The flat buyers and shop buyers and registered during the can also opt to purchase new flats validity of the initial CC but later from the RA at prevailing or current got removed in the amended CC. market rates in case of which 100% of their admitted principal will be

iii) Payments received towards adjusted towards the new deal.

shops which were approved & registered during the validity of The buyers opting to buy new flats the initial CC but later got need to pay 70% of the new deal removed in the amended CC. value within T+ 90 days and the balance as per the construction linked schedule.

Category C

i) Payments received towards the After receiving approvals for flat which had valid CC at the balance/additional or future FSI, time of purchase but registered these flats buyers will be paid 25% after the amended CC. of their admitted principal at the end of the plan ie., T+730 days.

ii) Payments received towards flats with invalid CC irrespective The flat buyers can also opt to of being registered or purchase new flats after approvals unregistered. for balance/additional or future FSI from the RA at prevailing or current market rates in case of which 50% of their admitted principal will be adjusted towards the new deal.

The buyers opting to buy new flats need to pay 70% of the new deal value within 30 days of getting approvals for the concerned FSI and the balance as per the construction-linked schedule.

Page 36 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

60. As we have noted earlier the claim of the Appellants to the Flat No.

1002, Vermont was figuring in the Virual Data Room along with details of

agreement to sale which was duly registered. We have also seen from the

affidavit of the RP that the Appellants have made full payment for the

property, in addition they have made extra payment of around Rs.23

Lakhs which was disbursed by the SBI directly to the CD, on account of

a sanctioned housing loan. The Appellants are only claiming right of his

allocated flat No.1002 towards which the total consideration of 42 lakhs

stands duly paid by them. The appellants have also stated that they are

not raising any claim for the balance amount of approximately 23 lakhs.

Based on these facts, the Appellants should have been treated as a

claimant within category A of the resolution plan as shown in the above

table. It is due to the lack of due diligence on part of RP and SRA that the

claim of Appellants was rejected without proper treatment in the

Resolution Plan.

61. The Appellants being aged persons and heart patients and suffered

deterioration in their health during the Covid-19 pandemic were not aware

of the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. So, they could not

file their claim on time. They filed their claim belatedly in June 2024,

nearly five years after commencement of CIRP. We have also noted from

the records that IRP/RP did not send any communication to the

Appellants regarding the initiation of CIRP. Inspite of our clear directions

to produce any evidence of communication to the appellant through any

means, the RP failed to produce any document on records of CD. In such

Page 37 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 circumstances, delay cannot be attributed solely to the Appellants, when

the RP failed in his duty to identify and notify stakeholders.

62. The Appellants hold a registered Agreement to Sell, vis-a-vis

unregistered allotment letters held by Mr. Amit Kriplani who appear to be

speculative investors. The RP himself has admitted receipt Rs. 65.72

Lakhs from the Appellants. The Appellants have restricted their claim to

Rs.42,00,000/- being the contractual value, thereby establishing bona

fides. Therefore, we have no doubt that the Appellants are genuine

homebuyers and their claim should have been categorised within

Category A of the Resolution Plan.

63. The Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan while the

Appellants' application was pending. This resulted in denial of an

opportunity to adjudicate their rights before finalisation of the plan. Such

action has caused serious prejudice and undermines principles of natural

justice. However, we also note that entire facts of the case were not

brought before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. It is only in the present

proceedings the facts about registered agreement to sale, and payment by

the Appellants could be brought on record after we insisted upon the RP

to file a comprehensive affidavit.

64. The Appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Appellate

Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 63 of 2024. In para 9

and 41 of Judgment this Tribunal has observed as follows:

"9. In the CIRP, Resolution Plans were submitted, including Resolution Plan by Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd.; Classic

Page 38 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 Promoters and Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Atul Builders India Pvt. Ltd. (in Consortium), which Resolution Plans were approved by the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") on 13.08.2021. On 24.08.2021, RP filed an Application before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Resolution Plan. Certain homebuyers, including two of the Appellants filed their claims in March 2023, which claim was rejected and communication was issued by the RP, informing them that their claim has been filed with delay, cannot be entertained. Some of the homebuyers filed their Application, whose claim was rejected before the Adjudicating Authority in the year 2023, which Applications remained pending for consideration. The Adjudicating Authority heard the IA No. 1950 of 2021 filed by the RP for approval of the Plan and approved the Resolution Plan by order dated 23.06.2023. IAs filed by some of the homebuyers, challenging the rejection of their claims, remained pending, on the date when the Resolution Plan was approved. The homebuyers, who are in Group No. II, have filed these Appeal(s), challenging the order dated 23.06.2023 approving the Resolution Plan. Some of the Homebuyers have challenged subsequent orders dated 01.08.2023. We have already noticed above that Promoters as well as their Group Entities, Operational Creditors and employees have also filed the Appeal(s), as noted above, challenging the approval of Resolution Plan dated 23.06.2023.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1051/2023

41. The Appellant No. 2 Suresh Sanghwi has advanced certain money in the year 2015 to DS Kulkarni and Company registered Agreement dated 30.06.2017 for Flat bearing No 601, G Wing on 6th Floor of Project DSK Vishwa Ph-VI, Anandghan was executed in favour of the Appellant.

Page 39 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 The registered Tripartite Agreement was executed with the Appellant as purchaser wherein DSK Global Education & Research Ltd. as land owners and Corporate Debtor as developer. By a general entry dated 30.06.2017, the loan advanced by Appellant to DS Kulkarni and Company was adjusted. The Appellant further made payment of VAT and service tax as well as Stamp Duty on registration charge. In the application filed by the Corporate Debtor through the Maharashtra RERA in July 2017, details of Flats sold in G Wing including the name of the Appellant was also mentioned. After admission of CIRP on 26.09.2023, when the Appellant came to know about the CIRP, they filed their claim on 31.03.2023, which was rejected by RP on the ground of delay. I.A. No. 2114/2023 was filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority which claimed to be dismissed on 22.11.2023 against which Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 192/2024, was filed by the Appellant which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 21.02.2024. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 23.06.2023, approving the Resolution Plan by which Resolution Plan, the Appellant have not been recognised as Homebuyers.

223. ......5. Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency Nos. 1050 and 1051 of 2023. • The Appellant(s) having successfully proved the allotment by Registered Deed executed on 30.06.2017 and their payments also reflected in the ledger of the Corporate Debtor, they are also entitled to claim treatment as has been given to the claims of the other Homebuyers. They are entitled to be treated in the same manner as other Homebuyers, whose claims have been admitted in the Resolution Plan. The SRA is directed to treat the Appellant(s) also allottees of their respective units and they shall also be given the units as per the Resolution Plan."

Page 40 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

65. The case of the appellant is identical to homebuyers in Ashdan

(supra). The Appellants herein are also homebuyers, who had filed a

belated claim after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, but

before the same was approved by the Adjudicating Authority and they are

squarely covered by the Ashdan Properties (supra) judgment of This

Tribunal.

66. The Appellant placed reliance on the Judgement of this Tribunal in

the case of "Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Private Limited" [2022

SCC Online NCLAT 245"] particularly para 27 of the judgment which is

extracted below:

"27. In the present case there is no denial that details of the appellant(s) and other homebuyers, who could not file their claims, have not been reflected in the information memorandum. There being no detail of claims of the appellant(s), the resolution applicant could not have taken any consideration of the claim of the appellant(s), hence, the resolution plan as submitted by the resolution applicant cannot be faulted. However, we are of the view that the claim of those homebuyers, who could not file their claims, but whose claims were reflected in the record of the corporate debtor, ought to have been included in the information memorandum and resolution applicant, ought to have been taken note of the said liabilities and should have appropriately dealt with them in the resolution plan. Non-consideration of such claims, which are reflected from the record, leads to inequitable and unfair resolution as is seen in the present case.

67. We note that in this case the information about the allotment of

Unit and Registered Agreement to Sale was available with IRP in VDR. The

information and access to VDR was available to PRAs. No information was Page 41 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 shared with the Appellants about initiation of CRP. The claim of the

appellant should have been automatically dealt with by the SRA in the

Resolution Plan. Non-consideration of such claims which are part of

record would be inequitable and lead to unfair resolution, as in present

case. The case of the Appellant is fully covered by the artio of Puneet Kaur

(Supra).

68. The Respondents have cited the following cases in support of their

contention that belated claims cannot be entertained after the approval of

Resolution Plan by the CoC, which was subsequently approved by the

Adjudicating Authority.

i. Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "CoC of Essar Steel Vs.

Satish Kumar (2020) 8 SCC 531" wherein it was observed that

the SRA cannot be faced with 'undecided' claims after the resolution

plan has been approved and/or accepted as this would amount to

a hydra head popping up which would cause a flurry to the

implementation of the Resolution Plan. This ratio is not applicable

in the present case as the RP/Committee of Creditors (CoC) ignored

the claim of a homebuyer whose allotment was already on record

and now they cannot take shelter under the "Hydra-head" argument

to unjustly enrich the SRA at the cost of a bona fide Homebuyer. ii. The Respondent No. 1/RP's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar

(2023)10 SCC 718)", regarding the absolute bar against belated

claims. However, this case applies strictly to cases where the Page 42 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025 creditor was sleeping over its rights despite having active knowledge

of the CIRP proceedings. It cannot be extended to a bona fide

homebuyer whose claim is deeply rooted in the existing financial

records of the Corporate Debtor as shown by the Appellant in the

present case.

iii. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in "Sneha

Kore & Anr. vs. Arun Kapoor & Anr . Resolution Professional

of Monarch Brookefields LLP [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2109 of

2024]". However, The "Clean Slate" doctrine and the principle of

absolute extinguishment under Section 31 are designed to protect

SRA from unforeseen liabilities. They cannot be used as a legal

eraser to escape accountability for debts that were documented and

active within ongoing judicial proceedings during the CIRP.

69. We note that in the present case the Appellants who are

homebuyers had a registered agreement to sell; they have made full

consideration for the Unit No. 1002; the information about the allotment

and agreement to sell was available in the virtual data room with IRP; the

IRP did not send any communication to the Appellants about the CIRP.

Further, the claim of the Appellants was rejected solely on the ground of

delay without any due diligence by the RP. On the other hand, the claim

of Mr. Amit Kriplani and his wife who are NRIs based in USA was admitted.

The non-acceptance of claim of a genuine home buyer leads to inequitable

and unfair resolution as is seen in the present case. The Appellants' case

is squarely covered by existing judicial precedent noted earlier.

Page 43 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025

70. In view of the findings above, the impugned order is set aside. The

appeal is allowed and the claim of the Appellants is admitted in Category

A of claims in the Resolution Plan as an addendum. Pending I.A.s if any,

are closed. No order as to costs.

[Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Place: New Delhi Harleen

Page 44 of 44 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 13 of 2025