Claims Filed Subsequent To Cut-Off Date Shall Be Dealt With As Per Resolution Plan Approved By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT

Brief Facts

The Appellant booked an Apartment and a Plot with M/s. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2010 in its Project IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali, Punjab and the IREO Hamlet Project respectively. The Apartment Buyers Agreement was executed on 27.05.2011.

On 17.10.2018, an order was passed by Adjudicating Authority admitting the CD – Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) in CP(IB)- 934(PB)/2018 filed by one of the allottees. On 29.10.2018, the Appellants submitted their claim Form regarding their Plot in IREO Hamlet Project. No claim was submitted with regard to Apartment.

On 23.08.2019, Resolution Plan submitted by Consortium of One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and APM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was approved. On 01.10.2019, the Resolution Professional (“RP”) moved an application under Section 30 seeking approval of the plan.

Col. K.K. Verma, father of Appellant No.2 wrote to the SRA on 07.10.2021, 09.10.2021 and 10.10.2021 for delivery of the possession of the property in which Appellant has already paid the amount of Rs.57,56,684/-. On 08.11.2021, the Appellant issued a Legal Notice to SRA asking them to deliver possession of the apartment and execute the Conveyance Deed. On 29.11.2021, Appellant filed an Application being IA No.5579 of 2021 praying for certain directions.

The SRA also filed reply to IA, pleading that as per approved Resolution Plan Clause 18.4 (xi) and 18.4(xix), the Appellant is entitled to refund of the 50% of the principal amount.

The Adjudicating Authority heard the parties and by impugned order disposed of IA No.5579 of 2021 observing that the Plan having been approved and attained finality the parties are governed by the terms of the approved Plan, such claims has to be dealt with in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Plan.

Contentions:

The appellant submitted that the claim has been filed by the Appellants, which has been verified and admitted and SRA has also been informed. Hence, the Appellants' case are not covered by Clause 18.4(xi).

It was also argued that contention that Appellants are entitled to only 50% of the total amount, as per Clause 18.4 (xi) is belied by the entry at S.No.636 in the List of Creditors, which admitted the Appellant's claim for full amount of consideration.

Referring to Clause 18.4 (xv) of the Resolution Plan, it is submitted that units, which have not received claim on the Plan Effective Date, i.e., the date on which the Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, would be available to the SRA for sale. The unit claimed by the Appellant is not available for SRA to sale, since the claim has already been submitted and accepted.

Refuting the submissions, the RP argued that he Appellants' case is fully covered by Clause 18.4 (xi) and (xix). The Appellant for the first time has filed its claim only on 07.02.2020, whereas the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) on 23.08.2019. The case of the Appellant that claim was submitted on 11.01.2019, is incorrect. There is no proof of submission of claim on 11.01.2019.

SRA submitted that the NCLAT in Jitender Poriya & Ors. vs. Anil Matta, RP Primrose Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.(2024) has held Resolution Plan contemplated, those who have not filed/ filed belatedly, subject to verification shall be considered by SRA.

Observations:

The tribunal noted that In the Application itself they have pleaded that they filed the claim only with regard to Plot in CA Form on 29.10.2018 and they did not file the claim with regard to apartment.

It further added that the RP has filed a reply to the Application, where the RP has categorically stated that no claim was received by the RP and for the first time, the claim was filed on 07.02.2020.

Having noted the sequence of events and perusing relevant documents, the tribunal observed that Appellants itself has submitted that it has filed its claim on 29.10.2018 with regard to claim of Plot, which was well within time by email. Thus, the Appellants were well aware that claim has to be filed by email at the email address or at New Delhi address, mentioned above. Thus, the pleadings made by the Appellant itself prove that there was no claim filed as per public announcement. Hence, the plea of the RP has to be accepted that claim for the first time was filed on 07.02.2020.

It also noted that on the date, when Plan was approved, the Appellant has not filed the claim, admittedly. Their case of submitting claim on 11.01.2019 has not been accepted as noted above. The purpose and object of Clause 18.4 (xi) is to even protect those allottees, who have not filed the claim, so as to consider their claims on merits and the claims, which were not filed, were not extinguished for the purpose to mitigate the hardship of those, who have not filed their claims within the time. The Resolution Plan having been approved, all stakeholders, including allottees are clearly bound by the same.

The tribunal concluded that the Appellant's claim, which was submitted subsequently to the approval of Resolution Plan of the CoC having been acknowledged by the RP in the list of creditors issued on 30.04.2020, the claim is entitled to be dealt as per Clause 18.4 (xi) and the Appellant is clearly entitled for refund of only 50% of the principal amount.

In Savita Dagar Solanki vs. One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors(2024)., the NCLAT held that “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.”

Case Title: Amit Nehra & Anr. Versus Pawan Kumar Garg Resolution Professional Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1365 of 2023

Judgment Date: 10/01/2025