2025 (3) TMI 975 - AT - IBC

Appellant who settled bank dues of Rs.17 lakhs after unit cancellation recognized as unsecured financial creditor

NCLAT Principal Bench held that appellant, who cancelled his unit and settled bank dues of Rs.17 lakhs, was correctly classified as unsecured financial ... Homebuyer or an unsecured financial creditor in the insolvency proceedings of the corporate debtor - reimbursement of the amount paid to the bank - HELD THAT:- The present is a case where Appellant on his own request got his unit cancelled and he has filed the claim with respect to the amount which was paid to the corporate debtor towards allotment of the unit as noted above, allotment was made on 04.06.2025 and the entire amount was paid by the UCO Bank to the corporate debtor. No payment was made by the Appellant to the Corporate Debtor. Appellant has brought on the record the order of the DRAT dated 10.02.2021 filed as Annexure A3 of the Affidavit. The Appellant entered into settlement with the Bank and paid Rs.17 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the dues, hence, there are no bank dues with respect to the unit in question. Adjudicating Authority in the order although has noticed the amount of Rs.29 Lakhs is reflected as payable by the Corporate Debtor in its books of accounts and the Resolution Professional shall intimate the bank about the amount payable to them forthwith - the Appellant has already paid the amount to the bank and all dues of the bank are settled with the Appellant. The Resolution Professional shall ensure that the amount of Rs.17 lakhs which was paid by the Appellant is paid to the Appellant from the amount reserved in the Resolution Plan. Counsel for the Resolution Professional submitted that the Appellant having paid the amount, the said amount will be paid to the Appellant. The ends of justice be served in disposing of the appeal directing the Respondent to make payment of amount of Rs.17 lakhs which was paid by the Appellant to the bank for arriving at settlement with the bank regarding amount paid by the bank towards unit in question - The said payment shall be paid to the Appellant within period of 60 days from today. Conclusion - The Appellant was rightly classified as an unsecured financial creditor and directed the reimbursement of the amount paid to the bank, ensuring compliance with the resolution plan. Appeal disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include: Whether the Appellant should be treated as a homebuyer or an unsecured financial creditor in the insolvency proceedings of the corporate debtor. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the same treatment as other homebuyers who received favorable judgments from the Supreme Court in similar circumstances. Whether the Appellant is entitled to a refund of the amount paid to the bank, which was initially paid by the bank to the corporate debtor on behalf of the Appellant.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Treatment of the Appellant as a Homebuyer or Unsecured Financial Creditor Relevant legal framework and precedents: The classification of creditors in insolvency proceedings is governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which distinguishes between secured creditors, unsecured creditors, and financial creditors. The Supreme Court's decision in 'Vishal Chelani & Ors. vs. Debashis Nanda' established that homebuyers with decrees from UP RERA should be classified as financial creditors. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered the Appellant's request to be treated as a homebuyer based on the Supreme Court's precedent. However, it noted that the Appellant had voluntarily canceled the allotment and thus was not reflected as a unit holder in the corporate debtor's records. Key evidence and findings: The records of the corporate debtor showed the unit as vacant inventory, and the Appellant's claim was not supported by the debtor's records. The Appellant's cancellation of the allotment was crucial in determining his status. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal framework to conclude that the Appellant could not be treated as a homebuyer due to the voluntary cancellation of the allotment. Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant argued for treatment as a homebuyer based on the Supreme Court's decision, while the Resolution Professional contended that the Appellant's claim was correctly categorized due to the cancellation. Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the classification of the Appellant as an unsecured financial creditor.2. Entitlement to Refund of Amount Paid to the Bank Relevant legal framework and precedents: The resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires that claims be settled according to the approved resolution plan. The Tribunal considered the Appellant's settlement with the bank and the absence of outstanding dues. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that the Appellant had settled the bank dues and directed that the amount paid by the Appellant to the bank should be refunded from the resolution plan's reserved funds. Key evidence and findings: The Appellant had settled the bank's claims by paying Rs.17 lakhs, and the Tribunal noted this settlement in its decision. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the facts of the settlement to ensure that the Appellant was reimbursed for the amount paid to the bank. Treatment of competing arguments: The Resolution Professional agreed to the reimbursement, and there was no significant opposition to this aspect of the Appellant's claim. Conclusions: The Tribunal directed that Rs.17 lakhs be paid to the Appellant from the resolution plan's reserved funds within 60 days.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The Resolution Professional shall ensure that the amount of Rs.17 lakhs which was paid by the Appellant is paid to the Appellant from the amount reserved in the Resolution Plan.' Core principles established: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the records of the corporate debtor in determining creditor classification and acknowledged the necessity of reimbursing amounts settled with third parties when such settlements are recognized in the resolution plan. Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was rightly classified as an unsecured financial creditor and directed the reimbursement of the amount paid to the bank, ensuring compliance with the resolution plan.