Suman Chopra vs Sh. Arvind Kumar Resolution ...

[Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in I.A. No. 604/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 248/Chd/Hry/2019] In the matter of: SUMAN CHOPRA W/O AMIT CHOPRA R/O F-50, SECTOR -44, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH- 201301 .... Appellant Versus

SH. ARVIND KUMAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT: SCO NO. 249, BASEMENT, SECTOR 44-C, CHANDIGARH - 160047 Email: irpcopl@gmail.com .... Respondent Present: For Appellant : Ms. Isha Virmani, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Atul V. Sood, Advocate for RP.

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code 2016 ('IBC' in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated

02.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-I)

in I.A. No. 604/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 248/Chd/2019. By the impugned order, the

Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the I.A. No. 604 of 2025 filed by Appellant seeking admission of their claim amount Rs 10,30,528/- and treatment of the

same in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present

appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-homebuyer.

2. Coming to the brief facts of the case, the Corporate Debtor-M/s

Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. was admitted into CIRP on 27.02.2023. A public

announcement inviting claims from creditors was issued by the Resolution

Professional ("RP" in short) on 07.07.2023. The Appellant-Homebuyer

submitted its claim belatedly on 15.03.2024 as a creditor of the Corporate Debtor

while the meeting of the Committee of Creditors ("CoC" in short) for voting on

the resolution plan was convened on 19.03.2024. Hence, the RP did not verify

the claim of the Appellant and did not place the same before the CoC in

pursuance of the provisions of Regulation 13(1B) & 13(1C) of the IBBI (Insolvency

Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 ("CIRP

Regulations" in short) which does not permit submission of claim within seven

days before the CoC meeting. The Appellant, aggrieved by the decision of the RP,

thereafter filed IA No. 604 of 2025 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking

directions against the RP-Respondent for admission of their claim of Rs

10,30,258/- by condoning the delay in filing the claim. The Adjudicating

Authority however dismissed the IA No. 604 of 2025 filed by the Appellant on the

ground that it was hit by CIRP Regulation 13(1B). Assailing the impugned order,

the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

3. Making submissions on behalf of the Appellant, Ms. Isha Virmani, Ld.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has

erroneously rejected IA No. 604 of 2025 without considering the fact that the Page 2 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025 Appellant had submitted their claim in the prescribed Form-CA for an amount

of Rs 10,30,258/- alongwith relevant supporting documents on 15.03.2024

which was four days prior to the date on which the CoC met for voting on the

resolution plan. It was further pressed that since the liability of the Corporate

Debtor towards the claim lodged by the Appellant was duly reflected in the

records of the Corporate Debtor, the claim could not have been denied by the

RP. It was also asserted that the RP had failed to comply with the requirement

of CIRP Regulation 6A which provides for individual communications to be sent

to all creditors as per books of accounts. However, when the RP failed to admit

the claim of the Appellant, the latter filed IA No. 604 of 2025 before the

Adjudicating Authority seeking condonation of delay in filing of claim and for

issue of directions to the RP to admit the claim and place it before the CoC. It

was strenuously contended that even the Adjudicating Authority dismissed the

IA No. 604 of 2025 on the sole technical ground that admission of the claim was

impermissible under CIRP Regulations 13(1B) & 13(1C) since the same was filed

less than seven days before the CoC meeting scheduled for approval of the plan.

It was pointed out that the Adjudicating Authority erred in law by treating CIRP

Regulations 13(1B) & 13(1C) as an absolute bar to considering claims filed less

than seven days before the CoC without taking cognisance of binding judicial

precedent laid down by this Tribunal in Rahul Jain Vs Nilesh Sharma, RP

Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1662 of 2023 wherein the Tribunal

after noting that though the Appellant had filed the claim belatedly, it directed

that the resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum to the resolution plan

to include the claim of the Appellant since the claim amount was reflected in the Page 3 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025 records of the Corporate Debtor. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of

this Tribunal in Sonia Kapoor Vs Arunava Sikdar, IRP, Dream Procon Pvt.

Ltd. & Anr. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 28 of 2024 which also held that if the liability

of the creditor is reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor, the RP must

forward such claims to the resolution applicant for inclusion through an

addendum to the resolution plan, irrespective of the delay in the filing of the

claim.

4. Refuting the contentions of the Appellant, Shri Atul Sood, Ld. Counsel for

the Respondent-RP submitted that the RP had acted in accordance with the

relevant CIRP Regulations in not admitting the claim as the same was filed in a

manner contrary to the CIRP Regulations. Submission was pressed that the

public announcement for submission of claim had been made on 07.07.2023

and pegged from that date there was a delay of 245 days therefrom in filing the

claim. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the Appellant had filed their claim

on 15.03.2024 as against the date on which the resolution plan was voted by the

CoC was 19.03.2024 and this formed a tenable reason for not admitting the

claims in terms of CIRP Regulations 13(1B) & 13(1C). It was also pointed out

that with effect from 18.09.2023, a new mechanism for condonation of delay in

filing the claim had been inserted vide Regulation 13(1B) and (1C) of the CIRP

Regulations, 2016 had been introduced. Viewed against CIRP Regulations 13(1B)

& 13(1C), the claim had been filed belatedly since claims as per CIRP Regulation

13(1B) can be admitted upto seven days before the date of CoC meeting. On the

other hand, the Appellant had filed their claims four days before the date of CoC

meeting and hence the delay was not condonable. The Adjudicating Authority Page 4 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025 had therefore correctly rejected the IA No. 604 of 2025 filed by the Appellant

since the RP was not required to verify a claim which has been filed less than

seven days before the meeting of the CoC for voting on the resolution plan. It was

further contended that the resolution plan having been passed by the CoC with

more than 99% vote share, the same cannot be allowed to be disturbed by the

Appellant who had not only filed their claim almost one year after public

announcement but also in breach of CIRP Regulation 13(1B). Submission was

also pressed that the Appellant was acting in cahoots with the suspended

director of the Corporate Debtor to put a spanner in the timely approval of the

resolution plan and was trying to derail the resolution process.

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the

records carefully.

6. The short issue for our consideration is whether the RP had committed

any irregularity in rejecting the belated claim of the Appellant which was not in

consonance with Regulation 13(1B) and 13(1C) of CIRP Regulations.

7. It is the case of the Appellant that the Long-Term Borrowings in the

Information Memorandum reflected the name of the Appellant-Suman Chopra

with an unsecured amount of Rs 2 lakhs credit. Thus, when the liability of the

Appellant qua the Corporate Debtor was clearly recorded in the Information

Memorandum, such undisputed claim could not have been rejected by the RP

and the Adjudicating Authority merely on grounds of time-lines as procedural

grounds cannot prevail at the cost of adversely impacting substantive justice. By

refusing to direct the inclusion of the Appellant's claim in the resolution process, Page 5 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025 the Adjudicating Authority by this decision undermined the overarching

objective of the IBC to ensure fair and equitable distribution of the plan proceeds

amongst the creditors besides fostering the likelihood and possibility of unjust

enrichment of other creditors. It was therefore contended that the impugned

order was legally unsustainable which deserved to be set aside and that this was

a fit case for issue of directions to the RP to admit the claim of the Appellant and

place the same before the CoC by inserting an addendum to the resolution plan.

8. Rebutting the claims made by the Appellant, it was vehemently denied by

the RP that the said claim of Rs 10,30,528/- of the Appellant appeared in the

Information Memorandum. It was contended that this plea was an entirely new

argument being raised by the Appellant before this Tribunal. In any case, it is

an admitted fact that the claim had been filed by the Appellant belatedly in

contravention of the CIRP Regulations and hence the Adjudicating Authority in

the impugned order had rightly affirmed the decision of the RP not to admit the

claim of the Appellant. Elaborating further, it was submitted by the Respondent-

RP that the Appellant never filed her claim within the time stipulated by the

public announcement nor within the extended time-line as provided by CIRP

Regulation 13(1B) & 13(1C). A lot of time had elapsed from the date of issue of

public announcement on 07.07.2023 inviting claims and the actual filing of

claim by the Appellant on 15.03.2024. Further, keeping in view that the

resolution plan was to be approved by the CoC on 19.03.2024 which was only

four days from the date of submission of claim as against the requirement of

Page 6 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025 seven days, the RP cannot be faulted for not admitting the claim in compliance

with CIRP Regulations 13(1B) & 13(1C).

9. When we look at the material on record, it is clear that public

announcement inviting claims had been made on 07.07.2023. It was contended

by the Respondent that even if it is admitted that the RP had failed to send an

individual communication to the Appellant in terms of Regulation 6A of CIRP

Regulations, the proviso to Regulation 6A states that where it is not possible to

send individual communications, the public announcement made under

Regulation 6 of CIRP Regulations shall be deemed to have been communicated

to the creditor. Thus, once the public announcement was made, the Appellant

cannot justifiably claim that they were unaware of the time-lines of the claim

management process as public announcement constituted deemed knowledge.

The Appellant has also not provided any cogent grounds for explaining the

inordinate delay in filing the claim. There was a clear delay of 245 days from

public announcement in filing the claim. Thus, prima facie this is a case where

the Appellant for no justifiable and plausible reasons had dropped their guard of

being vigilant in pursuing their claims within time-lines. Be that as it may, when

we look at the decision of the Adjudicating Authority for not admitting the claim

of the Appellant, we find that it was rejected not for this inordinate delay but

because the filing of claim was not in consonance with CIRP Regulation 13(1B)

& 13(1C) since the Appellant had filed their claim on 15.03.2024 which was four

days away from the date i.e.19.03.2024 on which the resolution plan was

scheduled to be voted upon by the CoC.

Page 7 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025

10. To come to our findings as to whether the Appellant was justified in

asserting that their claims deserved to have been admitted and the delay in filing

of the claims be condoned on the ground of fairness and equity, it may be useful

and constructive to take notice of the relevant CIRP Regulations which set out

the condonable period for filing of belated claim.

11. The relevant CIRP Regulations 13(1B) & 13(1C) are as reproduced below:

"13(1B) In the event that claims are received after the period specified under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12 and up to seven days before the date of meeting of creditors for voting on the resolution plan or the initiation of liquidation, as the case may be, the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, shall verify all such claims and categorise them as acceptable or non- acceptable for collation.

13(1C) The interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, shall:-

(a) intimate the creditor within seven days of categorisation thereof under sub-regulation (1B) and provide reasons where such claim has been categorised as non-acceptable for collation; and

(b) put up the claims categorised as acceptable under sub-regulation (1B) and collated by him to:-

(i) the committee in its next meeting for its recommendation for inclusion in the list of creditors and its treatment in the resolution plan, if any; and

(ii) submit such claims before the Adjudicating Authority for condonation of delay and adjudication wherever applicable."

12. When we look at the above CIRP Regulations, it is amply clear that the RP

can accept claims only up to seven days before the date on which the CoC is to

approve the resolution plan. It is an admitted fact that the Appellant had not

submitted their claims seven days before the CoC meeting to approve the

Page 8 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025 resolution plan. The Adjudicating Authority had therefore not committed any

error in the given facts and circumstances in not acceding to the request of the

Appellant for admission of their claims. This is not a case where the RP can be

said to have deliberately stalled the claim of the Appellant. There is no credible

reason to doubt the bonafide of the RP in not admitting the claims of the

Appellant. Hence, we are of the considered view that neither the RP nor the

Adjudicating Authority can be found to have committed any error in not

admitting the claims of the Appellant.

13. We now come to the next limb of argument of the Appellant that the

Adjudicating Authority had failed to appreciate that the claim of the Appellant

was not only undisputed but duly supported by relevant documents and also

reflected in the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor as well as the

Information Memorandum. It was asserted that the Long-Term Borrowings in

the Information Memorandum reflected the name of the Appellant-Suman

Chopra. Per contra, it was contended by the Respondent-RP that the plea of Rs

10,30,528/- appearing in the books of the Corporate Debtor qua the Appellant

was an entirely new argument being raised by the Appellant before this Tribunal.

When we look at the material placed on record, we do not find any reasons to

disagree with the Respondent-RP for we notice that the document brought before

this Tribunal by the Appellant by way of a written submission was that an

unsecured amount of Rs 2 lakhs credit appeared in the books of the Corporate

Debtor.

Page 9 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025

14. This brings us to the judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellants to

contend that if the liability of the creditor is reflected in the records of the

Corporate Debtor, the RP must forward such claims to the resolution applicant

for inclusion even if the claim is filed belatedly. When we look at the facts of the

case which has been relied upon by the Appellant in Rahul Jain judgment

supra and Sonia Kapoor judgment supra, we find distinguishing facts in both

those cases from the present factual matrix. Quite apart from the fact that there

was admittedly no dispute amongst the creditor and the RP in those two cases

unlike the present one where the RP and the Appellant are not on the same page

over the fact as to whether the liability had been reflected in the Information

Memorandum or not, what is still more distinct that those two cases dealt with

admission of belated claim before the coming into play of CIRP Regulations

13(1B) and 13(1C) unlike in the present matter. CIRP Regulations 13(1B) and

13(1C) were introduced with effect from 18.09.2023 while in the Rahul Jain

case and Sonia Kapoor case, the belated claims were filed on 19.09.2022 and

24.06.2023. On the other hand, in the present case the claim was file on

15.03.3024 which was after the CIRP Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C) had come

into effect. Hence, these two judicial precedents do not come to the aid of the

Appellant.

15. We also do not find any infirmity in the impugned order upholding the

non-admissibility of the claims by the RP since it is well-settled law as laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Essar Steel Vs Satish Kumar Gupta (2020)

8 SCC 531 and in RP Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Mukul Kumar (2023) 10 SCC

Page 10 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025 718 that belated claims should not be entertained as it is fraught with the

possibility of more such claims springing up leading to indefinite delay in the

completion of the resolution process thereby affecting the certainty and

effectiveness of resolution. If new and additional claims are allowed to crop up

even after the plan is approved by the CoC, the CIRP process could be put to

jeopardy and the intent of IBC would stand frustrated. Further, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has also propounded the fresh slate principle in Ghanashyam

Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs Edelweiss Asset Restructuring Company Ltd.

(2021) 9 SCC 657 and in light of the above well-established legal precept, we

are of the considered view that the Adjudicating Authority had not committed

any infirmity in disallowing the belated claim filed by the Appellant in violation

of CIRP Regulations 13(1B) & 13(1C).

16. It does not commend us to overturn the findings of the Adjudicating

Authority in rejecting I.A. No. 604 of 2025 and not agreeing to issue any direction

to the RP for belated admittance of the Appellant's claim which had been filed

four days before the CoC was to meet for approval of the plan. Any such measure

of admitting belated claims carries the potential of encouraging other

claimants/creditors who did not file their claims on time to now lodge their

claims which in turn would render the resolution process to become an endless

and unceasing process. This would not only violate the objective of timely

resolution but also compromise the integrity of the resolution process.

17. In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any cogent grounds

which warrants any interference in the impugned order. The impugned order

Page 11 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, not suffering from any infirmities, is

upheld. The Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, we leave it open

for the Appellant to approach the SRA with regard to her claim and it shall be

open to the SRA to consider accepting the same and give it the same treatment

as done in respect of other similarly situated claims within the overall outlay

committed in the resolution plan for settlement of all claims. No order as to costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Place: New Delhi Date: 10.03.2026 Abdul

Page 12 of 12 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1331 of 2025