Savita Dagar Solanki vs One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

In the matter of: Savita Dagar Solanki ....Appellant Vs. One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents For Appellant Mr. Bilal Ali, Advocate. For Respondents Mr. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Rishabh Govila, Advocates.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1569 of 2024

In the matter of: Sukhwinder Singh & Anr. ....Appellants Vs. One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents For Appellants Mr. Bilal Ali, Advocate. For Respondents Mr. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Rishabh Govila, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.09.2024: These two Appeals have been filed by the Appellants

claiming to be allottees challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal) Principal Bench dated 07.05.2024.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1544 of 2024 has been filed challenging the

order dated 07.05.2024 in IA No.1395 of 2022 whereas Company Appeal (AT) 2

(Ins.) No.1569 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order of the same date in

IA No.890 of 2022.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding these Appeals

are:-

2.1. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 17.10.2018.

Publication was made by the IRP. Claims were received. Appellants before us

did not file any claim. The Resolution Plan came to be approved by the CoC on

05.09.2019. Appellants' case is that they filed their claim subsequent to

approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC but prior to the approval of the

plan by the Adjudicating Authority. Adjudicating Authority approved the plan

on 01.06.2021. Appellants filed appropriate application seeking a direction

that they should be given the units which are claimed to be allotted to the

Appellants. The prayers made in the IA No.1395 of 2022 are quoted for ready

reference in paragraph 1:-

""a. direct the Resolution Applicants/Respondents No. 1 & 2 to raise the demands as per the Allotment letter and grant possession of the Residential Units being IH 2-Plot- 344 and IH 2-Plot-339 in the Ireo Hamlet 2 project and IH 4- Plot-B23 and IH 4-Plot-C127 in the Ireo Hamlet 4 project of the Resolution Applicant;

b. Direct the Respondents No.1 & 2 to enter into fresh Builder Buyer Agreement with the applicant herein as per the terms of the Approved Resolution Plan;

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1544 of 2024 WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1569 of 2024 3

c. Direct the Respondents No.1 and 2 to implement the Resolution Plan in a time bound manner as specified in the approved Resolution Plan;

d. Direct Respondents No.1 &2 not to deviate from the objects, purpose and terms of the Approved Resolution Plan;

e. Direct initiation of proceedings against the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 under Section 74(3) for non- implementation of the approved Resolution Plan as per its intent and purpose;

f. to execute and register a conveyance deed in favor of Applicants with respect to Residential Units being IH 2- Plot-344 and IH 2-Plot-339 in the Ireo Hamlet 2 project in village Sukhgarh and Samabalkhi and IH 4-Plot-B23 and IH 4-Plot-C127 in the Ireo Hamlet 4 project in village Dhol situated at, Sector-98, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab- 140306; and

g. pass such other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, in favor of the Applicants."

2.2. The application was opposed by the Resolution Professional. It was

stated that the CoC has approved the plan on 05.09.2019 and thereafter the

Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority and under clause

18.4, those claimants who have not filed the claim before the cut-off date were

treated not to be extinguished for six months to enable the SRA to deal with

the claim. It is submitted that the Appellants who filed the claims after cut-off

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1544 of 2024 WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1569 of 2024 4

date are entitled for payment as per clause 18.4. Adjudicating Authority

dismissed the application after noticing the aforesaid submissions of the

Resolution Professional. In paragraph 7 of the impugned order, the

Adjudicating Authority made following observations:-

"7. In any event, there is a treatment for belated claimants in the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC and that is binding by all the parties."

3. Counsel for the Appellants challenging the order contends that the

Appellants having filed the claims before approval of the plan by the

Adjudicating Authority, they are entitled to be allotted units. It is submitted

that the Resolution Professional ought to have verified the claims and reflect

their names in the Information Memorandum. Adjudicating Authority in the

impugned order has observed that the Information Memorandum does not

reflect the name of the Applicants. Appellant has filed the copy of the

Resolution Plan which has now been ultimately approved by the Adjudicating

Authority. In paragraph 18.4 (v) following has been provided:-

"v. It is clarified that any person claiming to be Allottee of the Corporate Debtor, who has not filed their claim with the Resolution Professional, or if filed, has not been verified by the Resolution Professional, or if verified, has not been informed to the Resolution Applicant shall not stand extinguished for a period of six months from the date of the approval of the Plan by NCLT and for this period they shall be dealt at the sole discretion of the Resolution Applicant according to the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1544 of 2024 WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1569 of 2024 5

merits of the case, and by way of proper verification of the documents held by the Allottees. Upon determination of the genuineness of such a claim, the same shall be restructured in the same manner as all similar claims already collated and admitted are being treated under this Plan, subject to whether the same is considered a simple Allottee, a Decree Holder for Refund or a Decree Holder for Compensation."

4. When we look into the aforesaid clause, it is clear that those claims

which were filed after the cut-off date (which includes the claims filed by the

Appellants) were kept alive for period of six months even after approval of the

plan by the Adjudicating Authority and they were to be dealt with by SRA.

Admittedly, after the approval of the plan, SRA called for the claims from the

Applicants who have again submitted their claims which according to the

Appellant has not been verified.

5. From the order of the Adjudicating Authority, it is clear that the claims

were filed by the Appellants after the cut-off date. We, thus, have no doubt

that SRA has to take care of the claims as per Clause 18.4 (v) of the Resolution

Plan and whatever amount is entitled to the Appellant to be paid as per Clause

18.4(v) shall be considered and paid by the SRA because the Resolution Plan

binds all concerned including the SRA, Appellants and all stakeholders.

6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order of the

Adjudicating Authority rejecting the application. However, as noticed above,

the Adjudicating Authority itself has observed that the claims have to be dealt

with in accordance with Clause 18.4 (v) of the Resolution Plan as noted above.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1544 of 2024 WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1569 of 2024 6

7. With the above observations, both the Appeals are disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1544 of 2024 WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1569 of 2024