Surendra Singh vs Bulland Buildtech Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Surendra Singh ...Appellants Versus Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

WITH Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1603 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Neeraj Kumar ...Appellants Versus Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Ranjan and Mr. Achint Kumar, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Nidhi Yadav and Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

11.09.2024: Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that amended memo

of parties have been filed which is taken on record. Let the memo of appeal be

amended accordingly.

2. These two appeals have been filed against the order dated 10.06.2024

passed by the NCLT, New Delhi, Court-II rejecting I.A. Nos. 2028/2024 and I.A.

2159/2024. The appellants filed a claim claiming to be Homebuyers in CIRP of

the corporate debtor which claim was admitted thereafter the appellant filed

the above quoted applications praying for acceptance of the claim. The

Adjudicating Authority heard the applications and have rejected the applications it was held that units claimed by the applicant are not reflected in

the records with the corporate debtor allotted to him hence the no infirmity can

be found in the order of RP not admitting the claim.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that

Resolution Professional has submitted before the Adjudicating Authority that

amount sanctioned to the applicant by the Central Bank of India and DHFL as

financial facility in terms of tripartite agreement is shown as received in

account of corporate debtor and Resolution Professional would have no

difficulty in admitting the claim of the banks as and when the same is filed.

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Batra appearing for the respondent that the

appellant himself by his letter issued in 2018 prayed that its unit be cancelled

and the amount be transferred to the Bank. The counsel for the appellant does

not dispute that he cancelled the unit but submission is that the certain

amount was paid by the appellant in addition to amount which was disbursed

by the bank and the Resolution Professional has submitted that the bank's

claim shall be considered by the Resolution Professional. It is further

submitted by the appellant that banks have filed proceedings under DRT for

recovery against the appellant also.

5. After having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in

so far as rejection of the applications filed by the appellant which the subject

matter of the appeal no infirmity can be found when the units were not

reflected and RP did not commit error in not admitting the claim in so far as

the bank dues are concerned the Resolution Professional's statement has

already been noticed that the banks claims will be considered if filed in CIRP. It

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 1595 & 1603 of 2024 2 of 3 is further stated that the plan has already been approved and SRA, who has

kept a contingency fund for dealing such claims which have not been admitted.

With regard to amount which is claimed by the appellant which was paid to the

corporate debtor it is always open for the appellant to approach the SRA and

submits their documents to prove the payment to the corporate debtor and it is

for SRA to take a call of the said claim. With these observations, we dismiss

both the appeals.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

harleen/NN

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 1595 & 1603 of 2024 3 of 3