NCLAT upholds rejection of financial creditor claim after possession already transferred to appellant

NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of appellant's claim as financial creditor in CIRP proceedings. The appellant had already received possession of units on 24.09.2014 through a possession letter, despite filing under protest. The Resolution Professional correctly rejected the claim since possession was already transferred. However, the Successful Resolution Applicant (Singla Builders and Promoters Limited) undertook to execute conveyance deeds for both units following approval of the resolution plan on 20.11.2023. The appeal was disposed of with direction for deed execution.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to order of National Company Law Tribunal, rejection of claim by Adjudicating Authority, possession of commercial spaces, admission of claim by Resolution Professional, approval of Resolution Plan.

Summary:

1. Challenge to Adjudicating Authority's Order:
The appeal was filed challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, rejecting the application seeking direction to admit the claim. The Appellant had sought admission of the claim which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.

2. Possession of Commercial Spaces:
The Corporate Debtor allotted two units to the Appellant in a commercial-cum-office complex. The Appellant made payments and sought possession. Possession letters were signed by the Appellant under protest. The Appellant also filed a Civil Suit seeking refund.

3. Admission of Claim by Resolution Professional:
Insolvency proceedings commenced against the Corporate Debtor, and the Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed. The Appellant submitted claims, which were not admitted by the RP. The Appellant challenged this decision through IA No.1531 of 2023.

4. Resolution Plan Approval:
The Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor was approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The SRA undertook to execute the Conveyance Deed for the units in favor of the Appellant.

5. Judgment Analysis:
The Appellant contended that the RP erred in not admitting the claim as a Financial Creditor. The RP and SRA argued that possession had been handed over to the Appellant, and hence the claim was rightly not admitted. The possession letter signed by the Appellant indicated acceptance of possession.

6. Decision and Disposition:
The Tribunal upheld the order rejecting the application. However, the SRA was directed to execute the Conveyance Deed for the units. The parties were to bear their own costs.

This judgment clarifies the issues surrounding the claim admission, possession of commercial spaces, and the Resolution Plan approval, providing a detailed analysis of the contentions raised by the parties and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal.

---