Surinder Arora vs Nilesh Sharma Resolution Professional ...

[Arising out of the Order dated 11.08.2023, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-III), in IA No. 3044/2021 in (IB)-1771(ND) 2018]

IN THE MATTER OF: SURINDER ARORA H-1602, PRATEEK STY LOME SECTOR-45, NOIDA 201301 ...Appellant Versus

MR. NILESH SHARMA RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL DREAM PROCON PRIVATE LIMITED IBBI/IPA-002/IP-00006/2016-17/4 ip.dreamprocon@gmail.com ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Archit Jain, Mr. Dhananjai Shekhawat, Ms. Dharni Sharma, Mr. Shantanu Singh Chandel, Advocates For Respondent : Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Mr. Akash Srivastava, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Prithu Garg, Mr. Shivam Singh, Mr. Ashutosh Arvind Kumar, Advocates for R-2/SRA.

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial)]

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, a Homebuyer of

Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. ( "Appellant") who had purchased Apartment No.- 601

in Tower No.-B 2 of the Project - Victory Ace, Sector 143 Noida 201304

("unit"), Under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

("Code") read with Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, being aggrieved by the

impugned judgement dated 11.08.2023 ("impugned Judgment") passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench at New Delhi

("Adjudicating Authority") whereby the application bearing IA no. 3044/2021,

moved by the appellant, in CP(IB)-1771/ND/2018, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd.

(Corporate Debtor) commenced subsequent to the order dated 06.09.2019

passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 petition filed by Ms.

Priyanshi Arora and Shri Manish Gupta was appointed as the Interim

Resolution Professional. The Public Announcement was issued by the Interim

Resolution Professional and the last date of submission of claims was fixed as

29.10.2019. The appellant submitted his claim on 09.06.2021 to the RP on

his official E-mail Id and also claimed to have submitted the Claim Form to

the Resolution Professional on June 10, 2021 by speed post. However, his

claim was not admitted by the RP for being time barred and on moving an

application to the Ld. Tribunal the same was also dismissed by passing

impugned order, which is the subject matter of this appeal.

3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that appellant had purchased

Apartment No.-601 in Tower No.-B- 2 of the Project Victory Ace Sector 143

Noida 201304 ("unit") in resale from one Mr. Anoop Chaudhary and the

Builder/Buyer Agreement dated 14.06.2014 along with the transfer

documents of the said unit were taken by him and also that as on the date of

commencement of the Insolvency Proceedings, the flat was/is in the name of

the Appellant being the bonafide owner and creditor of the Corporate Debtor.

The Appellant was a bonafide member of Victory Ace Social Welfare Society

and was paying the membership fee on continuous basis.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 2 of26

4. It is further submitted that on 19th March 2021 the Appellant had

received an e-mail from the Victory Ace Social Welfare Society and then he

came to know about the Resolution process of the CD but due to the surge of

COVID-19, the nationwide lockdown was imposed in the whole country on

15.03.2020 as well as in Uttar Pradesh and during the period of March to

June 2021 he had suffered from Covid and couldn't respond to the E-mail of

the RP and couldn't file the claim form with the Resolution Professional.

However, in the month of June, after the end of the lockdown and recovery

from COVID, the Appellant approached the Victory Ace Social Welfare Society

but the calls made by the Appellant were not responded and the Appellant

having no other option approached the RP via an E-mail dated 09.06.2021

and submitted the claim form to the RP on his official E-mail Id and also sent

the Claim Form to the Resolution Professional, via speed post on June 10,

2021.

5. It is further submitted that vide E-mail Dated June 15,2021 the RP had

not admitted the claim of the Appellant by giving the reason that the

Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA (Respondent No.2) has been approved

in the meeting of the Committee of Creditors (COC) dated 07.05.2021 and

hence claim cannot be admitted as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

and Regulations made therein and aggrieved by the non-acceptance of his

claim by the RP, the Appellant moved an Application bearing IA No.

3044/2021 before the tribunal which has been dismissed by passing the

impugned judgment.

6. Ld. counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant could

not filed the claim only on account the Covid-19 infection and also that there

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 3 of26 was nationwide lockdown imposed and later on his calls were not responded

by the Association which later on also submitted a Resolution plan which has

also been approved.

7. It is further submitted that the last claim of the CD was approved by

the RP on 10.03.2021 which clearly shows that the claim has been approved,

verified and accepted by the Resolution professional, even after the last date

mentioned in the Public Announcement issued and by the same was not

issued widespread and is not in consonance with the Section 13, 15 of the

Code and Regulation 6 as well as 6A of the CIRP regulations, 2016 and the

Resolution Professional without collating and verifying the claim rejected the

claim of the appellant, which is against the provision of the code.

8. It is further submitted that the reply received by the Appellant clearly

shows that the information with regard to the claim of the appellant was

already in the knowledge of the Resolution Professional, which was evident

from the documents attached with the reply and apart from the Appellant

there are other 135 Allottees who could not file their claims as per the data

provided by the Resolution Professional, hence non consideration of such

claims can lead to inequitable and unfair resolutions and this differential

treatment has been given to the homebuyers which are similarly placed in the

books of the Corporate Debtor by dividing them in the category of claimant

and non-claimant.

9. It is further submitted that the Resolution Professional was obliged to

include the details of Homebuyers as reflected in the records of the Corporate

Debtor, in the Information Memorandum, even though they have not filed

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 4 of26 their claim before the Resolution Professional within time, as per regulation

36 of the CIRP Regulations 2016 and the Resolution Applicant ought to have

also dealt in Resolution Plan those Homebuyers, whose names and claims are

reflected in the record of the Corporate Debtor, though they have not filed any

claims and by not doing this a grave illegality has been committed by the RP

which the Ld. Tribunal also failed to correct and rejected the Application on

the basis of Puneet Kaur v. KV Developers Ltd. & Ors., on the wrong

interpretation of the above-mentioned judgement and in not considering that

the time line provided under regulation 12 CIRP is directory and not

mandatory as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court Pioneer Urban Land

and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416.

10. It is further submitted that the tribunal has also failed to consider the

law laid down by this Appellate Tribunal in Puneet Kaur v. KV Developers

Pvt. Ltd and Ors., wherein it was, inter-alia observed that the rights and

claims of homebuyers, whose names are reflected in the books of the

Corporate Debtor ('CD') do not extinguish till the Resolution Plan is approved

by the Adjudicating Authority ('AA'), even if filed at a belated stage and it has

also been settled that by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset

Reconstruction (2021) 9 SCC 657, that it is only after the Resolution Plan is

approved by the Adjudicating Authority that all such claims not forming part

of the Plan shall stand extinguished. Thus the impugned judgment be set

aside and Respondents be directed to admit the claim filed by the Appellant

and also include his name in the updated list of creditors.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 5 of26

11. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/RP while drawing the attention of

us towards the impugned judgment submits that the claim was preferred by

the appellant after the stipulated period of time and therefore, the same has

been rightly rejected by him as well as by Ld. Adjudicating Authority and the

same is not required to be interfered with.

12. It is further submitted that no proper explanation of delay occurred in

submission of claim by the appellant has been given and the appellant cannot

be allowed to delay the entire CIRP Process as the plan submitted by the

Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) has been approved by the CoC with

90.66% voting share in its 11th meeting held on 07.05.2021 and is pending

for approval before Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

13. It is further submitted that in terms of the provision contained in

Regulation 36 (2) (a) and Regulation 36 (2) (1) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016

the respondent was only obliged to include the details of the assets and

liabilities of the CD and he included the unit in question under the head of

list of allottees who have not filed their claims. Attention of us has been

drawn on the copy of IM dated 17.06.2020 which has also been enclosed as

Annexure R-2 of the reply filed by the RP.

14. It is further submitted that unit in question of the appellant was duly

reflected as the unit in respect of which no claim has been received in the

aforesaid information memorandum. However, the RP is bound by the

timelines provided under the Code and Regulations and cannot accept the

claim after the prescribed time period.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 6 of26

15. It is also submitted that the first owner of the unit bearing no. B 2-601

was one Anoop Chaudhary who had booked it in 2014 with regard to which

an allotment letter dated 14.04.2014 was duly issued by the CD and

thereafter the unit was transferred to the appellant on 06.03.2018 and in lieu

of the unit allotted, payments against the allotment along with membership

fee was duly paid by the appellant to the CD till January, 2021.

16. It is also submitted that the appellant was having knowledge of the

commencement of the CIRP against the CD but he did not remain vigilant and

the appellant being a resident of Noida should have knowledge of all the

details of the CD and he remain dormant for about three years.

17. It is further submitted that on the basis of the claims received the list of

creditors was prepared by the RP and a list of those allottees was also

prepared who had not filed their claims and the name of the appellant was

included therein and the resolution plan submitted by the SRA could not be

disturbed only for want of filing of claim by the appellant.

18. It is further submitted that by not filing the claim within the stipulated

time and by approval of resolution plan by the CoC, the right, if any of the

appellant has been extinguished. Reliance in this regard has been placed on

the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 5590 of 2021

M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar and Anr., as well as the law

laid down by this appellate tribunal in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 799 of 2023, IDBI

Bank Ltd. vs. Jalesh Kumar Grover and CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1172 of 2023,

Millennium Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (IRP).

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 7 of26

19. It is further submitted that the Respondent cannot compel the

Respondent to admit its claim only on the basis that his name was displayed

in the list of allottees of project especially when the Resolution Plan of the

SRA has been approved by the Ld. Tribunal and therefore the appellant is not

entitled for any relief.

20. Ld. Counsel for the SRA/Respondent No. 2 submits that the appellant

was himself ignorant and could not take the advantage of his own wrong as

he without any explanation did not file the claim within the stipulated time

framework.

21. It is further submitted that throughout the CIRP the office bearers and

members of the Respondent (Victory Ace Social Welfare Society) has given

widest coverage to the publication of Form A and also to the submission of

claims by the homebuyers and for this purpose they have created multiple

social media pages and accounts, however, the appellant himself did not file

any claim within the stipulated timeline.

22. It is further submitted that the Form G was published by the resolution

professional inviting prospective resolution applicants to submit their

expression of interest and resolution plan and before that the information

memorandum prepared by the RP contained a list of homebuyers who have

not submitted their claims was prepared and their names were mentioned in

the CRM data of the CD and the name of the appellant has appeared at S. No.

57 of the said list under the heading of the homebuyers who have not

submitted claims and in the meantime the SRA has submitted the Resolution

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 8 of26 Plan which has also been approved by the CoC with 90.66% of vote and is

pending for approval before Ld. Adjudicating authority for approval.

23. It is further submitted that the IA No. 3044 of 2021 has been rightly

dismissed by the adjudicating authority as the claim by the appellant was

preferred after the stipulated timeframe. Reliance in this regard has been

placed on Pooja Mehra vs. Nilesh Sharma and Anr., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1511

of 2023 judgment date 19.04.2024.

24. We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the record

and find that the Ld. Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the

appellant on the ground that the plan has been approved by the COC. The

relevant part of the impugned order is reproduced as under:

"2. It is admitted position that Committee of Creditors in its 11th meeting held on 07.05.2021 has approved the Resolution Plan by 90.66% votes. The Applicant herein filed the claim on 14.10.2021 after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors.

3. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble NCLAT in the case of Puneet Kaur versus M/s. K.V. Developers Private Limited Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 390 of 2022 dated 01.06.2022, it has been held that claim filed after the approval of the Plan by the Committee of Creditors cannot be admitted.

4. In view of the above position of law as laid down by the Hon'ble NCLAT in the case of Puneet Kaur (supra) the claim of the present Applicant which has been filed belatedly after the approval of the Plan by the Committee of Creditors cannot be entertained or admitted.

5. It may further be noted that the Resolution Professional upon due verification of the Books of Account of the Corporate Debtor duly reflected the unit for which the present belated claim has been filed in the list of flats, but the Applicant did not file any claim.

6. IA is devoid of any merit and rejected."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 9 of26

25. From the materials brought on the record following are the facts which

are undisputed: -

(i) The Appellant has purchased Apartment No.-601 in Tower No.-B- 2 of the

Project Victory Ace Sector 143 Noida 201304 ("unit") in resale from one Mr.

Anoop Chaudhary and the first owner of this unit was one Anoop Chaudhary

who had booked it in 2014 with regard to which an allotment letter dated

14.04.2014 was duly issued by the CD and thereafter the unit was

transferred to the appellant on 06.03.2018 and in lieu of the unit allotted,

payments against the allotment along with membership fee was duly paid by

the appellant to the CD till January, 2021.

(ii) The appellant has filed his claim by submitting Form through Email to RP

on 09.06.2021 on his official E-mail Id and also sent the Claim Form to the

Resolution Professional, via speed post on June 10, 2021.

(iii) The unit in question of the appellant was included by the RP in the

Information Memorandum dated 17.06.2020 under the head of list of allottees

who have not filed their claims.

(iv) The RP did not admit the claim of the Appellant by giving the reason that

the claim has not been presented within stipulated time and also that

Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA (Respondent No.2) has been approved

in the meeting of the Committee of Creditors (COC) dated 07.05.2021 and

hence claim cannot be admitted as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

and Regulations made therein.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 10 of26

(v) Appellants had filed applications bearing IA No. 3044 of 2021 before the

Adjudicating Authority praying for admission of his belated claim which was

rejected by passing of the impugned order.

(vi) The resolution plan passed by the CoC is pending for approval before the

Ld. Tribunal, as an application IA No. 3250 of 2021 is stated to have been

moved by the RP in this regard.

26. We notice that the Ld. Tribunal while rejecting the application moved by

the appellant has cited the law propounded by this appellate tribunal in

Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT

245. It is reflected that in the facts of the Puneet Kaur the homebuyers could

not file their claims within the time stipulated by the Resolution Professional

for receiving of the claims and the Resolution Plan was also in the said case

was approved by the CoC. In this scenario the Applications filed by the

homebuyers were rejected by the Tribunal and against which the appeals

were filed. The payments made by homebuyers were also reflected in the

records of the CD and it was argued that it was the duty of the RP to have

included these claims in the Information Memorandum and the Resolution

Applicant should have taken note of the same. This appellate Tribunal in that

case framed following four questions for consideration: -

"12. From the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, following are the questions, which arise for consideration in these Appeal(s):

(1) Whether the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the IAs filed by the Appellant(s) seeking direction to include their claims, which was belatedly filed? (2) Whether after approval of the Resolution Plan on 20.07.2021 by CoC, the claim of the Appellant(s) stood extinguished?

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 11 of26 (3) Whether the Resolution Professional was obliged to include the details of Homebuyers as reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor in the Information Memorandum, even though they have not filed their claim before the Resolution Professional within time?

(4) Whether Resolution Applicant ought to have also dealt with Resolution Plan regarding Homebuyers, whose names and claims are reflected in the record of the Corporate Debtor, although they have not filed any claim?"

27. This appellate Tribunal with regard to the first question No.1 held that

as law exists today, the appellants who have not filed their claims in time

cannot be included in the List of Creditors and that too after approval of Plan

by CoC. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with order of the

Adjudicating Authority rejecting their Application for admission of their claim.

However, their claims need to be dealt in a manner, which we shall deal in

later part of this judgment.

So far as second question is concerned this appellate Tribunal opined as

under: -

"18. It is thus clear that extinguishment of claim of the

Appellant(s) shall happen only after approval of the Plan

by the Adjudicating Authority. The argument of the

Respondents that since CoC has approved the Resolution

Plan, the claim of the Appellant(s) have been extinguished,

cannot be accepted as there is no extinguishment of claim

of the Appellant(s) on approval of Plan by the CoC.

Question No.(2) is answered accordingly."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 12 of26 So far as question No. 3 and 4 are concerned, this appellate tribunal opined

and concluded as under:

"27. In the present case there is no denial that details of

the Appellant(s) and other Homebuyers, who could not file

their claims has not been reflected in the Information

Memorandum. There being no detail of claims of the

Appellant(s), the Resolution Applicant could not have been

taken any consideration of the claim of the Appellant(s),

hence, Resolution Plan as submitted by 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. To mitigate the hardship of the

Appellant, we thus, are of the view that ends of justice

would be met, if direction is issued to Resolution

Professional to submit the details of Homebuyers, whose

details are reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor

including their claims, to the Resolution Applicant, on the

basis of which Resolution Applicant shall prepare an

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 13 of26 addendum to the Resolution Plan, which may be placed

before the CoC for consideration. The above exercise be

completed within a period of three months from today and

the addendum along with minutes of the CoC be placed

before the Adjudicating Authority at the time of approval of

Resolution Plan, which is pending consideration before the

Adjudicating Authority. The Resolution Applicant may also

bring into the notice of the Adjudicating Authority the order

of this date, so that the Adjudicating Authority may await

the addendum and minutes of the CoC, which may be

considered along with approval of the Resolution Plan. We

thus, dispose of these Appeal(s) with following directions:

(1) The Resolution Professional shall provide all details of

Homebuyers along with their claims as reflected from the

record of the Corporate Debtor, who had not filed their

claims, including the Appellant(s) to the Resolution

Applicant within a period of one month from today.

(2) The Resolution Applicant shall prepare an addendum

on the basis of information as submitted by Resolution

Professional and place the same before the CoC within a

further period of one month.

(3) The CoC shall consider the addendum in its meeting

and decision of the CoC on the Information Memorandum

and addendum be placed before the Adjudicating

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 14 of26 Authority. The CoC shall take decision in its meeting

within a period of one month from the date of submission

of addendum by the Resolution Applicant.

(4) The Adjudicating Authority while considering approval

of the Resolution Plan, which is pending consideration in

IA No.3447 of 2021 shall consider the addendum and the

minutes of the CoC at the time of finalizing the Resolution

Plan.

28. The Resolution Professional shall bring into the notice

of the Adjudicating Authority, the order of this date, so as

to enable the Adjudicating Authority to await the filing of

addendum along with the minutes of the CoC.

29. The Appeal(s) are disposed of in view of the above

terms. Parties shall bear their own costs."

(Emphasis Given)

28. The aforesaid Puneet Kaur (Supra) was quoted with authority in a

recent judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in Ms. Reena v. Rabindra Kumar

Mintri and Anr.,(2025) ibclaw.in 867 NCLAT, wherein another case of this

Tribunal namely Rahul Jain vs. Nilesh Sharma, Resolution Professional of

Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd.- Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1662 of

2023 was considered in following words :-

"21. Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on a Three Member Bench Judgment of this Tribunal in "Rahul Jain vs. Nilesh Sharma, Resolution Professional of Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd.- Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1662 of 2023" which was a case where

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 15 of26 the claim filed by the Appellant was rejected by the Resolution Professional to be accepted as having been filed beyond the time. Application filed by the homebuyers before the Adjudicating Authority being IA No.4954 of 2022 was rejected on 11.08.2023 against which order the appeal was filed. The case of the Appellant in Rahul Jain's case was that he has been allotted units. The plan was approved by CoC on 07.05.2021 and the claim was filed with a delay of 980 days from the last date of submission of claim. The above fact has been noticed in paragraph 2 which is as follows: -

"2. One of the Home buyer in the aforesaid project, namely, Ms. Priyanshi Arora, as a Financial Creditor, filed an application under Section 7 before the Tribunal against the Corporate Debtor which was admitted on 06.09.2019. The Respondent No.2, namely, Victory Ace Social Welfare Society (Association of the Home buyers of the same project) submitted the resolution plan which was approved by the CoC on 07.05.2021. The appellant submitted his claim on Form CA to the RP on 19.09.2022 after a delay of 980 days from the last date of submission of claim and 492 days after the approval of the plan by the CoC. The claim of the appellant was rejected by the RP on same day i.e. 19.09.2022 which led to the filing of I.A. No. 4954 of 2022 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application observing that the plan was approved on 07.05.2021 in the 11th meeting of the CoC by 90.66% votes and the claim is highly belated."

22. Submission was raised by the Appellant- Rahul Jain that the Appellant's claim is reflected in the Information Memorandum and the payments of the amount of the Appellant is also reflected. The said submission has been noted in paragraphs 4 and 5 which is as follows: -

"4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the asset of the appellant has been reflected in the Information Memorandum by the RP and has also drawn our attention to the list of unit holders who had not filed the claim in which name of the appellant is at Sl. No. 52 in which it is reflected that the selling price of the unit is Rs.60,00,300/-, the amount received by the Corporate Debtor is Rs.49,26,674/- and the balance amount is Rs. 10,73,626/-.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 16 of26

5. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the same decision of this court in the case of Puneet Kaur & Ors. Vs. KV Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) to contend that even if it is presumed that the appellant has not filed its claim even then this court has held that if the liability have been reflected in the Information memorandum then it is the duty of the RP to submit the detail of the Home buyers to the Resolution Applicant on the basis of which the Resolution Applicant shall prepare the resolution plan and place before the CoC for its consideration."

23. This Tribunal after hearing the parties has held that the homebuyers through details reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor are required to be considered and Resolution Applicant is to prepare an addendum in the Resolution Plan which may be placed before the CoC for consideration.........

24. This Tribunal ultimately issued following direction in

paragraph 17: -

"17. Thus, keeping in view the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the controversy in hand is covered by the case of Puneet Kaur (Supra) and therefore, while allowing the present appeal and setting aside the impugned order, we direct the RP to submit the detail of the appellant reflected in the record of the CD including their claim to the resolution applicant on the basis of which the resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum to the resolution plan which may be placed before the CoC for consideration. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from today and the addendum and the minutes of the CoC at the time of finalizing the resolution plan shall be considered by the AA at the time of the approval of the resolution plan which is pending consideration before the AA. The Resolution Professional may also bring to the notice of the AA, the order of this date, so that the AA may await the addendum alongwith the minutes of the CoC which may be considered alongwith the approval of the resolution plan.

Pending I.As, if any, are hereby closed."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 17 of26 The above judgment fully supports the case of the Appellant of the instant

case. In the present case also the payments made by the Appellant (His

Predecessor) are duly reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor and it

has been categorically admitted by the RP in his reply filed before this

Appellate Tribunal.

29. In the above mentioned case of Ms. Reena v. Rabindra Kumar Mintri and

Anr. (Supra) it is also noted that above mentioned law propounded in Puneet

Kaur (Supra) was also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Amit Nehra

& Anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.- Civil Appeal No.4296 of 2025"

decided on 09.09.2025 , in following words:-

"28. Counsel for the Appellant has placed heavy reliance

on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Amit Nehra & Anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.-

Civil Appeal No.4296 of 2025" decided on 09.09.2025.

It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

above judgment has referred to the judgment of this

Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. M/s. K.V. Developers

Private Limited" (supra). In the above case, the Appellant

was also allotted residential unit in the year 2011 out of

sale consideration of Rs.60,06,368/-. Appellant had paid

Rs.57,56,684/-. Section 7 application was admitted on

17.10.2018. Claim was physically filed by the Appellant

on 11.01.2019 and again submitted the claim by e- mail

on 07.02.2020. The Resolution Plan by the CoC was

approved on 23.08.2019 which was subsequently

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 18 of26 approved by NCLT on 01.06.2021. Application filed by the

Appellant was rejected by NCLT and Appeal was also

dismissed by this Tribunal. The Respondent in the case

has relied on a clause 18.4 (xi) in Resolution Plan which

provided refund of 50% principal amount. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and held that the claim

which was resubmitted on 07.02.2020 and accepted by

Resolution Professional, name of the Appellant being

included in the list of creditors dated 30.04.2020, the

claim could not have been rejected and the case of

Appellant could not be held to be covered by Clause 18.4

(xi). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted the undisputed

position in paragraph 32 which is as follows: -

"32. The admitted and undisputed position remains that

the Appellants claim was resubmitted on 07.02.2020; that

it was duly verified by the Resolution Professional; and

that it was incorporated in the published list of creditors

dated 30.04.2020. Once such verification and

incorporation occurred, the claim acquired full legal

recognition within the CIRP process."

30. In paragraph 33 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

accepted the contention of Appellant- Amit Nehra relying on the judgment of

this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. M/s. K.V. Developers Private Limited"

(supra). In paragraph 33, following was held: -

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 19 of26 "33. We are unable to countenance the approach of the

NCLAT in brushing aside this admitted position, and in

treating the Appellants as if they had not filed any claim

at all. The publication of the list of financial creditors is

an act in discharge of a statutory duty by the Resolution

Professional. It cannot be reduced to a meaningless

formality. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has rightly

placed reliance on Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt.

Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 245, wherein it was

observed as follows:

"......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

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. To mitigate the hardship of the

appellant, we thus, are of the view that ends of justice

would be met, if direction is issued to the resolution

professional to submit the details of homebuyers, whose

details are reflected in the records of the corporate debtor

including their claims, to the resolution applicant, on the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 20 of26 basis of which the resolution applicant shall prepare an

addendum to the resolution plan, which may be placed

before the committee of creditors for consideration....."

In this backdrop, the Resolution Professional rightly

admitted the claim of the Appellants to the extent of Rs.

57,56,684/- and reflected it at Serial No. 636 in the list of

financial creditors."

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the case of the Appellant

which was verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional cannot be

held to be covered by Clause 18.4(xi) which provided for refund. Following

was held in paragraphs 35, 36 & 37: -

"35. The Appellants case, on admitted facts, does not fall

within Clause 18.4(xi). Their claim was filed, verified, and

informed to the Successful Resolution Applicant, as is

evidenced by the entry at Serial No. 636 in the list of

creditors dated 30.04.2020, admitting their claim to the

extent of Rs. 57,56,684/. Once so admitted, their case

squarely falls within Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause

18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan.

36. The Respondent(s) reliance on Clause 18.4(xi) is

misconceived. That clause is intended to apply only to

allottees who had defaulted in filing or pursuing their

claims. The Appellants cannot be so characterised, having

paid nearly the entire consideration, submitted their claim,

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 21 of26 and had it duly verified and admitted by the Resolution

Professional.

37. What is critical to note is that this is not a case of

entertaining a fresh claim beyond the Resolution Plan. It

concerns an allottee whose claim was verified and

admitted by the Resolution Professional and reflected in

the list of financial creditors well before approval of the

Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. To disregard such an

admitted claim and confine the Appellants to the limited

benefit under Clause 18.4(xi) is not to preserve the binding

effect of the plan but to misapply it. Clause 18.4 itself

draws a clear distinction between verified claims and

belated or unverified claims; to obliterate that distinction

would render the scheme otiose. Relegating bona fide

allottees, who have paid substantial consideration years

in advance, to the status of mere refund claimants runs

contrary to the very object of the legislative framework."

32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has held that relegating

bona fide allottees, who have paid substantial consideration years in advance,

to the status of mere refund claimants runs contrary to the very object of the

legislative framework. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case allowed

the appeal, set aside the order of the NCLT and NCLAT and directed for

execution of conveyance deed. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court fully supports the submission raised by Counsel for the Appellant.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 22 of26

33. In the aforesaid case of Ms. Reena v. Rabindra Kumar Mintri and

Anr., (Supra) and in the case of RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar

& Anr.- (2023) 10 SCC 718, whereon the reliance has been placed by Ld.

counsel for SRA has also been distinguished as under :-

"32. Learned Counsel for the SRA has placed reliance on

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "RPS

Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr.- (2023)

10 SCC 718" in support of his submission that Resolution

Applicant cannot be saddled with new claims. Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the above case made following

observations in paragraph 21 to 23: -

"21. The second question is whether the delay in the

filing of claim by the appellant ought to have been

condoned by Respondent 1. The IBC is a time bound

process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in

which the time can be increased. The question is

whether the present case would fall within those

parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of

287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That

they were litigating against the corporate debtor is an

undoubted fact. We believe that the appellant ought to

have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid

circumstances to find out whether the corporate debtor

was undergoing CIRP. The appellant has been deficient

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 23 of26 on this aspect. The result, of course, is that the

appellant to an extent has been left high and dry.

22. Section 15 IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI

Regulations mandate a public announcement of the

CIRP through newspapers. This would constitute

deemed knowledge on the appellant. In any case, their

plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements

is not one which should be available to a commercial

party.

23. The mere fact that the adjudicating authority has yet

not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can

go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless

process. This would result in the reopening of the whole

issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons

who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described

above, in Essar Steel [Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) v.

Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531: (2021) 2 SCC

(Civ) 443], the Court cautioned against allowing claims

after the resolution plan has been accepted by the

COC."

"33. There are two distinguishing feature of the present

case with the case of RPS Infrastructure (supra). The RPS

Infrastructure (supra) was litigating with the Corporate

Debtor even before start of CIRP hence, Supreme Court

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 24 of26 observed that they ought to have been vigilant and the

RPS Infrastructure (supra) was a commercial entity. In the

present case, we are concern with case or homebuyers

whose allotments and payments are duly reflected in the

books of accounts and record of Corporate Debtor".

34. Having regard to the reasons mentioned above and the law laid down in Puneet Kaur (Supra) as approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Nehra

(Supra) and aforesaid law of this Appellate Tribunal in Reena (Supra) the

judgment of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting application of the appellant

cannot be sustained. Appellant has made out a case for treatment of his claim

in the Resolution Plan as per the details which were included by the

Resolution Professional in the information Memorandum. In result the Appeal

filed by the Appellant is allowed in following terms: -

(i) The order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA no.

3044/2021, moved by the appellant, in CP(IB)-1771/ND/2018 is, hereby, set

aside and IA no. 3044/2021 filed by the Appellant is allowed to the extent

that the claim of the Appellant as reflected in the Information Memorandum

prepared by the Resolution Professional need to be dealt with by the

Resolution Applicant in the Resolution Plan.

(ii) We direct the RP to submit the detail of the appellant reflected in the

record of the CD including their claim to the resolution applicant on the basis

of which the resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum to the

resolution plan which may be placed before the CoC for consideration. The

entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 25 of26 today and the addendum and the minutes of the CoC at the time of finalizing

the resolution plan shall be considered by the Adjudicating Authority at the

time of the approval of the resolution plan which is pending consideration

before the Adjudicating Authority.

(iii) The Resolution Professional may also bring to the notice of the

Adjudicating Authority, this order, so that the Adjudicating Authority may

await the addendum along with the minutes of the CoC which may be

considered along with the approval of the resolution plan.

35. Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending IA's if any, is also disposed

of.

[Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

New Delhi.

12.12.2025.

sr

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1529 of 2023 26 of26