Individual Homebuyer Can't Maintain Application U/S 60(5) Of IBC For Rejection Of Other Creditors' Claims: NCLT Chandigarh
Mohd Malik Chauhan
26 July 2025 3:40 PM IST
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chandigarh bench of Sh. Harnam Singh Thakur, (Judicial Member) and Sh. Shishir Agarwal (Technical Member) has held that an individual homebuyer is not permitted to approach the Adjudicating Authority seeking rejection of other creditors' claims especially when no enforcement of his rights or personal grievances is involved. The present...
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chandigarh bench of Sh. Harnam Singh Thakur, (Judicial Member) and Sh. Shishir Agarwal (Technical Member) has held that an individual homebuyer is not permitted to approach the Adjudicating Authority seeking rejection of other creditors' claims especially when no enforcement of his rights or personal grievances is involved.
The present application has been filed under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeking directions to declare the admitted claims to be false, collusive and fraudulent. The Applicant further prays that claims should be re-verified, a revised list of creditors should be prepared and action should be taken against the Resolution Professional for lack of due diligence.
The Applicant submitted that there are instances of duplicity of names in the list of creditors which suggests that names have been wrongly included and the possibility of deliberate manipulation to inflate the claims cannot be ruled out.
It was further submitted that the Applicant through due diligence has discovered that claims of Rs. 39.80 cr. which have been admitted are not as per financial data submitted by the corporate debtor and the RP appears to have admitted the claims without any corroborative evidence.
Per contra, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant lacks locus to file the Application which has been filed after more than 1 year of voting on Resolution Plan by the CoC on 19.3.2024. The allegations of duplicity of names, wrong admission of claims of Madhu Uppal & Meena Batra are 'possibilities' as per the Application itself.
The Tribunal observed that the Applicant has failed to submit a power of attorney executed by the alleged homebuyers nor has their CoC membership been proved. Furthermore, the Applicant failed to disclose its participation in the CoC meeting. The present issue was not raised either before the CoC or the RP nor proper explanations were provided for filing the application after a delay of a year.
It further observed that a single homebuyer cannot individually maintain an Application before this Tribunal in matters relating to CIRP, especially where the issues pertain not to enforcement of his own rights or grievances, but seek dismissal or disqualification of claims of other creditors.
The Tribunal found the present application was found to be a gross abuse process. It further noted that the same issue has been raised in the present application which is already pending in an Interlocutory Application filed by the suspended director of the corporate debtor. No justifications have been tendered to implead Respondent No. 2 in the present application.
It also held that allegations of related party claims and duplicity of claims are vague and speculative. They have been raised based on unverified e-mails issued by a non-party. It concluded that the present application was a malafide attempt to initiate fishing inquiry.
Accordingly, the present application was dismissed.
Case Title:Rajeev Khurana Vs. Sh.Arvind Kumar, Resolution Professional and Ors.
Case Number: IA (I.B.C)/603(CH)2025 in CP(IB) No. 248/Chd/Chd/2019 (Admitted)
Order Date: 02/07/2025