Mrs Krishna Devi vs H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt Ltd

IN THE MATTER OF: Krishna Devi ...Appellant Versus H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Sinha, Advocate.

For Respondent : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

19.02.2025 : Heard Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 24.10.2024 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 2463/2024.

3. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are:

i. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor

commenced on 06.06.2018.

ii. The Resolution Plan were to be filed in the CIRP.

iii. The Resolution Plan came to be approved on 14.11.2019 by the

Committee of Creditors (CoC) which was also approved by the

Adjudicating Authority on 15.03.2021. The Resolution Plan started to

be implemented.

iv. Appellant filed its claim on 19.04.2024 relating to shop in question.

Claim having not been entertained, I.A. No. 2463/2024 was filed by the Appellant on 18.07.2024 which came to be rejected by the Impugned

Order.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order submits that

there was no time limit in the relevant Clause of the Resolution Plan and the

Appellant could have filed its claim at any time only with a condition that

additional amount of Rs.700 sq. ft. was to be taken from the unitholder.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to Clause 6.13.4(c) of the

Resolution Plan.

5. We have considered the submissions of the Appellant and perused the

record.

6. Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order has also observed that

similar Applications were also considered and rejected by the Adjudicating

Authority which was referred to in Paragraph 16 of the Impugned Order.

Appellant by Additional Affidavit has also brought on record the copy of the

Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 02.06.2023 in new I.A. No.

3008/2023.

7. The Clause 6.13 4(c) on which reliance is placed by the Appellant is as

follows:

"Clause 6.13 4 c) HSOB is required to accommodate any additional unit holders for which claims have not been filed up to the last date of submission of the resolution plan, either with the RP of CEPL or EIL, then HSOB shall charge additional Rs. 700/- (Seven Hundred) per Sq. Ft. for unit HSOB is required to accommodate any additional unit holders for which claims have not been filed up to six months of the last date of submission of the resolution plan, then HSOB shall charge additional Rs. 200/- per Sq. ft. for unit."

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 57 of 2025 2 of 4

8. Submission of the Appellant is that the said Clause does not give any

time limit for claim of unit and only requirement was to payment of additional

charge of Rs.700 and Rs.200 per sq. ft.

9. When we look into the Clause, there are two categories of unitholder

who were contemplated, those who have not filed by the claim up to the last

date of the submission of Resolution Plan and the Clause provided that SRA

is required to accommodate any additional unitholders for which claims have

not been filed up to 6 month of the last date of submission of the Resolution

Plan, then HSOB shall charge additional Rs.200 per sq. ft. for unit.

10. The Resolution Plan has to be read in manner to make it implementable.

The Clause cannot be read to mean that the Clause permit any unitholder to

file claim at any stage, even after approval of the Resolution Plan by the

Adjudicating Authority. The Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC in the

year 2019 as noted above on 14.11.2019 and the Adjudicating Authority

approved the Plan on 15.03.2021, the Plan was obviously submitted much

prior to approval of the Plan by the CoC.

11. We, thus are of the view that any claim filed in the year 2024 cannot be

dealt in the Resolution Plan nor there is any obligation of the SRA to allot the

unit to a claimant who had filed claim in 2024, furthermore, the similar

Application has already been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority as noted

above, hence the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in taking

same view which it has been earlier taken in while rejecting the new I.A. No.

3008/2023.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 57 of 2025 3 of 4 We thus do not find any ground to interfere with the Impugned Order.

Appeal dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 57 of 2025 4 of 4