BELATED CLAIMS BY THE ALLOTTEES IN A ‘CIRP’ PROCESS

In Amit Nehra & Anr. Versus Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors. - 2025 (9) TMI 624 - Supreme Court, Puma Realtors Private Limited is part of the India Real Estate Opportunity Fund (‘IREO’ for short), undertook development of integrated residential townships in Punjab, a modern residential complex, envisaged delivery of multiple residential blocks with allied amenities and facilities. The appellants, resident of Bengaluru, booked an apartment in the project during 2010. They executed a purchase agreement with Puma Realtors Private Limited for the purchased of an apartment for the value of Rs.60,06,368/-. They paid a sum of Rs.57,56,684/- to the said company. The balance amount would be adjusted on account of delay in delivery of possession of the apartment. The apartment should be handed over to Amit Nehra and his friend on 17.11.2023.

The promoter did not hand over the apartment to them. Therefore, they filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh with the prayer to refund the amount Rs.57,56,684/- with applicable interest to them.

In the meanwhile, the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’ for short) admitted an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the Puma Realtors Private Limited on 17.10.2018 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’ for short). The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, considering the admission for CIRP against Puma Realtors Private Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’ for reference) disposed the application with the directions to Amit Nehra and his friend to file a claim before the Resolution Professional, duly appointed by the NCLT.

The Resolution Professional, appointed by the NCLT issued a public announcement, calling for the claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor including home buyers. The appellants filed their claim on 29.10.2018 in respect of the plot allotted to them. For the apartment the authorised representative of claimants filed the claim physically on 11.01.2019 at the project office of the Corporate Debtor at Mohali.

The Resolution Professional sent an email to the claimants with the request to resubmit their claims. The claimants resubmitted their claim on 07.02.2020. On 30.04.2020 the Resolution Professional published the list of Financial Creditors in which the claimants (‘appellants’ for reference) were placed at the Sl. No. 636 and the claim was admitted to the extent of Rs.57,56,681/-.

Resolution plan was submitted by the One City Infrastructure Private Limited and APM Infrastructure Private Limited, the successful Resolution Applicants to the Resolution Professional.  The same was approved by the Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019 and approved by the Adjudicating Authority, on the file of application by the Resolution Professional on 01.06.2021. As per the Resolution Plan, the treatment of homebuyer claims was governed by Clause 18.4, with distinct provisions for timely claims and belated claims.

Still the possession of the apartment was not made over to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants approached the Adjudicating Authority seeking directions to the Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant for the execution of conveyance deed and deliver the allotted apartment. The appellants submitted the following before the NCLT-

• Their claim stood verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional, and was accordingly reflected in the list of financial creditors published on 30.04.2020.
• They could not be relegated to the restrictive treatment as per clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan.
• The Appellants are entitled either the aforesaid apartment or the amount reflecting in the list of creditors along with interest till the date of realization.

The Resolution Professional and the Resolution Applicant objected the above contentions of the appellants. They submitted the following before the Adjudicating Authority-

• No claim had been filed on 11.01.2019.
• The appellants filed claim was on 07.02.2020, well after the Committee of Creditors had approved the Resolution Plan on 23.08.2019.
• The Appellants’ claim was therefore squarely covered by Clause 18.4(xi), which provided for refund of only 50% of the principal amount paid.

The Adjudicating Authority found that there was no proof to substantiate the assertion of a claim having been filed on 11.01.2019 and held that the claim was in fact filed only on 07.02.2020, subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019. Since the Resolution Plan had been duly approved and attained finality, the NCLT held that the Appellants claim was to be dealt with strictly in accordance with Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan, entitling them only to refund of 50% of the principal sum. Therefore, the NCLT dismissed the application filed by the appellants.

Being aggrieved against the order of NCLT, the appellants filed appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’ for short). Relying on the list of creditors dated 30.04.2020, wherein their claim was duly admitted to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684/- the Appellants contended that they could not be placed under Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan. The NCLAT observed that the Appellants had admittedly not filed their claim within the period stipulated in the public announcement. The plea of physical filing at the Mohali office on 11.01.2019 was unsupported by any contemporaneous record. In terms of the public announcement, claims were to be submitted only through electronic means or at the New Delhi address of the Resolution Professional. The NCLAT observed that the claim of the Appellants could be recognised only from 07.02.2020, when it was resubmitted by e-mail. The NCLAT felt that the claim of the appellants fell within the ambit of Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan. The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and held that Appellants were not entitled to possession of the apartment, but only to refund of 50% of their deposit, i.e. Rs. 28,78,342/-, payable in Quarter 13, as envisaged in the approved Resolution Plan.

The appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of NCLT. The Supreme Court heard the submissions of the parties to the present appeal and perused the materials placed on record. The central question which fell for the determination of the Supreme Court is as to whether the Appellants, being allottees of an apartment in the project IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali developed by the erstwhile Corporate Debtor Puma Realtors Private Limited and having admittedly paid a sum of Rs. 57,56,684/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-, are to be treated as belated claimants entitled only to refund of 50% of their principal deposit under Clause 18.4(xi), or whether, their claim having been duly verified and incorporated in the list of creditors, they are entitled to possession in terms of Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan.

The Supreme Court observed that the case of the appellants rests on two pillars-

1. their claim was initially submitted on 11.01.2019 in physical form at the project office at Mohali and
2. pursuant to the Resolution Professional’s email dated 31.01.2020 inviting homebuyers who had not filed their claim, to do so, they resubmitted their Form-CA on 07.02.2020 by way of an e-mail.

Their claim was thereafter duly verified, admitted and incorporated in the list of financial creditors published on 30.04.2020 at Serial No. 636. The Supreme Court was of the view that once such verification and incorporation occurred, the claim acquired full legal recognition within the CIRP process. 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. The Supreme Court held that 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.

Next the Supreme Court analysed the provisions of the Resolution Plan which provides for the different categories of allottees. The Supreme Court observed that the Appellants case, on admitted facts, does not fall within Clause 18.4(xi). The Respondent(s) reliance on Clause 18.4(xi) is misconceived. That clause is intended to apply only to allotees who had defaulted in filing or pursuing their claims. The Appellants cannot be so characterised, having paid nearly the entire consideration, submitted their claim, and had it duly verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional. The Appellants had paid nearly the entire sale consideration as far back as 2011. To deny them possession today, despite their claim having been duly verified and admitted, would inflict unfair and unwarranted prejudice.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of NCLT and NCLAT. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to execute the conveyance deed and handover the possession of the apartment within two months from the date of order of Supreme Court.