2025 (10) TMI 1079 - AT - IBC

Appeal allows belated home-buyer claims to be included in resolution plan after RP affidavit verified payments and delays

Ms. Reena, Putti Lal, Yashveer Singh, Through POA Holder, Rajat Bhushan Srivastava, Harnam Singh Hans, Arjun Singh, Kiran Pandey, Rani Singh, Ritu Das & Anr., Anuradha Mittal Versus Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Anr

NCLAT (Principal Bench) allowed the appeal, set aside the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of belated home-buyer claims and directed that those claims ... Prayer for acceptance of belated claims - Home Buyers - application were filed beyond 90 days of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commencement date - HELD THAT:- The most important feature to be noted in the present case is the fact that Resolution professional himself has filed the Affidavit before the Adjudicating Authority containing details of all applicants, including unit no., days of delay in filing the claim and amount outstanding. The table produced clearly amounts to the verification of the claim and on the verification of the record of the Corporate Debtor, the said chart has been prepared and filed before the Adjudicating Authority in compliance of the order dated 05.03.2024 and 11.06.2024. Adjudicating Authority did not advert to the Affidavit filed by the Resolution Professional and the fact that payments made by the Appellant against allotment of different units is a fact which is admitted by the Resolution Professional in its tabular chart. When the amount paid by the unit holders on the basis of valid allotment is reflected in the record of the Corporate Debtor, the judgment of Puneet Kaur vs. M/s. K.V. Developers Private Limited [2022 (6) TMI 108 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI] fully covers the issue and the said payments by unit holders cannot be ignored by Resolution Applicant and such claims were required a due consideration by the Resolution Applicant. It is true that the claims were filed by the Appellants after the CoC approved the plan on 04.03.2020. The Resolution Plan application was filed before the Adjudicating Authority however, the plan was never approved by the Adjudicating Authority and was remitted back to the CoC on 05.03.2024. Admittedly, the applications by the Appellants were filed before the Adjudicating Authority much before 05.03.2024 and they were pending consideration on 05.03.2024. Applications filed by the Appellants were also taken note in the order dated 05.03.2024 and directed to the listed on 30.04.2024. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the present case and especially, the fact that amount paid by the Appellant and details of their allotments and payment being on record of the Corporate Debtor, the claims were required to be dealt with by the Resolution Applicant. Resolution Professional has further submitted that the claims are reflected in the Information Memorandum of the Appellant. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puneet Kaur vs. M/s. K.V. Developers Private Limited [2022 (6) TMI 108 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI] and Amit Nehra & Anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors. [2025 (9) TMI 624 - SUPREME COURT] fully supports the submissions of the Appellant. The judgment of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting applications cannot be sustained. Appellant has made out a case for treatment of their claims in the Resolution Plan as per the details which were submitted by the Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority by means of an Affidavit - The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is set aside - Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether applications by homebuyers for admission of belated claims filed after the 90-day claim period but before final adjudication can be rejected solely because they were filed after the 90-day period and/or after Committee of Creditors (CoC) approval of a resolution plan. 2. Whether a resolution plan remitted by the Adjudicating Authority to the CoC for resubmission (to address treatment of a statutory creditor) precludes consideration of other pending belated claims that were listed for adjudication. 3. Whether claims reflected in the corporate debtor's records or Information Memorandum (IM) oblige the Resolution Professional (RP) and the Resolution Applicant (RA) to include such claims in the IM/addendum and deal with them in the resolution plan despite late formal filing by the creditor. 4. Whether claimants whose payments are reflected in the corporate debtor's records and whose claims were verified by the RP (or disclosed in RP's affidavit) can be relegated to a refund-only clause in the resolution plan (e.g., 50% refund cap), or must be treated as financial creditors in a class with corresponding plan treatment. 5. The extent to which precedents (including those holding that fresh claims cannot be entertained after CoC approval) apply where: (a) the resolution plan approval is not yet final before the Adjudicating Authority; and (b) claims are on corporate records/IM or verified by the RP. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Admissibility of belated claims filed after 90 days / after CoC approval Legal framework: Regulation 12(2) CIRP Regulations (90-day claim window measured from commencement) and statutory regime under the Code governing CIRP timelines; Section 30(2) obligations on resolution plan to meet statutory parameters; RP's duties under Regulation 6A/Information Memorandum obligations. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal considered decisions holding that claims filed after plan approval are generally not entertainable and decisions allowing consideration where claims appear in the debtor's records or were verified by RP (Puneet Kaur and subsequent authorities). The Supreme Court decision in RPS Infrastructure (distinguishing commercial parties with actual notice) was relied on by Respondents; higher-court precedents permitting consideration where RP verification/IM reflection exist were followed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished blanket rejection based solely on lapse of 90 days or CoC approval where (a) resolution plan approval by the Adjudicating Authority was not final (plan remitted); and (b) claim details were reflected on corporate records/IM or were verified/compiled by RP in an affidavit. Where the plan remained subject to Adjudicating Authority scrutiny (i.e., remitted and to be re-submitted), pending IAs asking for admission of claims were required to be considered on merits. The Tribunal emphasised that CoC approval alone does not extinguish claims until the Adjudicating Authority approves the plan; therefore, rejection solely for lateness was not tenable where other statutory and factual factors (verification, record entry) existed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - claims reflected in corporate records/IM or verified by RP require consideration notwithstanding delay and pending adjudication; CoC approval does not automatically extinguish claims until judicial approval. Obiter - general admonition that CIRP is time-bound and late claims by commercial entities with notice may be declined (consistent with RPS). Conclusion: Rejection solely because claims were filed beyond 90 days (or after CoC approval) was unjustified where the plan was remitted and claims were recorded/verified; the Adjudicating Authority must consider such pending applications on merits. Issue 2 - Effect of remittal of resolution plan for re-submission on other pending claims Legal framework: Section 30(2) IBC parameters; Adjudicating Authority's supervisory power to remit for compliance with statutory parameters; Tribunal's supervisory directions on sequencing of addendum and re-submission. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on its prior decisions directing that when liabilities appear in corporate records/IM the RP/RA must include them in an addendum and place before CoC (Puneet Kaur; Rahul Jain; Sonia Kapoor), and on the Supreme Court's direction in analogous circumstances to treat certain statutory creditors as secured and remit plan for reconsideration. Interpretation and reasoning: The remittal ordered to satisfy specific parameters (treatment of a statutory creditor) did not limit or negate the Adjudicating Authority's obligation to adjudicate other pending IAs listed for hearing. The Tribunal's prior order directed awaiting Adjudicating Authority's decision on pending applications before RA re-submission; accordingly, remittal did not bar consideration of homebuyers' belated claims, particularly where the RP had already compiled and filed a chart verifying payments. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - remittal limited to specified defects does not ipso facto preclude adjudication of separately listed, pending applications; RA must await adjudication outcome and incorporate directions in resubmitted plan. Obiter - caution against using remittal as a device to freeze all challengeable claims. Conclusion: The remittal for re-submission did not preclude consideration of pending applications; Adjudicating Authority erred in treating remittal as excluding homebuyers' IAs. Issue 3 - Duty to include claims reflected in corporate records/Information Memorandum and RP's affidavit; role of addendum Legal framework: RP's duty to prepare and publish Information Memorandum and to verify claims; requirement that RA and CoC consider liabilities disclosed in IM when formulating plan; practice of preparing addendum to plan to reflect newly identified/verified claims. Precedent treatment: Followed the Tribunal's decisions (Puneet Kaur, Rahul Jain, Sonia Kapoor) and the Supreme Court's approval of treating RP-verified claims as having legal recognition (Amit Nehra). Distinguished authorities that reject late claims where no such record/verification exists (and where claimants had full notice as commercial parties - RPS and SP Propbuild circumstances). Interpretation and reasoning: If RP's records or IM reflect homebuyers' payments/claims, RP must forward details to RA, and RA must prepare an addendum to the resolution plan for CoC consideration. Verification or admission by RP (or compilation in an affidavit pursuant to court order) imparts legal recognition to those claims within the CIRP process and cannot be ignored; failure to do so yields inequitable result. The Tribunal relied on RP's affidavit filed post remittal which tabulated unit numbers, amounts received and delays - constituting verification for purposes of inclusion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - RP/RA are obliged to include claims reflected in debtor records/IM (and as verified) in the plan process via addendum; such claims, once verified, acquire legal recognition requiring treatment as financial creditors in a class. Obiter - mechanism and timelines for such inclusion should be orderly to avoid reopening the CIRP indefinitely. Conclusion: The RP's affidavit and IM entries necessitated RA's preparation of a (second) addendum to include the appellants' claims and place it before CoC; the Adjudicating Authority must consider the resulting addendum when approving the resolution plan. Issue 4 - Applicability of refund-only clause (50% cap) to admitted/verified homebuyer claims Legal framework: Terms of the resolution plan govern treatment of unverified/belated claims; distinction drawn in plan clauses between verified claims and refund-only treatment for unverified or belated claims; principle that plan cannot be applied in a manner that negates legal recognition of RP-verified claims. Precedent treatment: Followed the Supreme Court's reasoning in Amit Nehra that an admitted/verified claim reflected in RP's lists cannot be relegated to refund-only treatment; such relegation would misapply the plan and offend the statutory scheme. Interpretation and reasoning: Where the RP's records/affidavit admit payments and claims, those claimants are not to be treated as mere refund claimants under a clause intended for unverified or defaulting allottees. The plan's refund clause applies to those who neither filed nor had their claims verified/informed to RA prior to submission; it does not apply to bona fide allottees whose claims are on record/verified. Applying the refund clause to such appellants would be inequitable and contrary to precedent. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - RP-verified or IM-reflected claims cannot be confined to refund-only remedy; such claimants deserve treatment as financial creditors in a class consistent with verified creditors. Obiter - plans may validly provide for limited refunds for genuine unverified belated claimants subject to plan limits. Conclusion: The appellants' claims, as reflected and verified in RP's affidavit/records, shall not be subjected to the plan's 50% refund clause and must be treated as financial creditors in a class with equivalent plan treatment. Issue 5 - Application and distinction of precedents that bar fresh claims post-CoC approval Legal framework and precedent treatment: The Tribunal reconciled RPS Infrastructure and SP Propbuild (which refused late claims where parties were commercial, had notice or had litigated and where the claimants had no RP verification/IM reflection) with Puneet Kaur, Rahul Jain and Amit Nehra (which permit inclusion where claims are reflected/verified). The Court emphasized factual distinctions and sequence (CoC approval vs. final Adjudicating Authority approval; presence/absence of RP verification and IM entries; nature of claimant). Interpretation and reasoning: Precedents rejecting late claims were distinguishable where claimants were commercial entities with notice or had not been recorded/verified by RP. Where RP verified or corporate records disclose the claims and where plan approval was remitted and pending judicial approval, principles from Puneet Kaur/Amit Nehra govern and require inclusion by addendum. The Tribunal refused to apply the bar on fresh claims mechanically where verification/IM disclosure existed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - application of bar on fresh claims is fact-sensitive; where verification/IM disclosure exists and plan approval is not judicially final, claimants may be entitled to inclusion despite delayed filing. Obiter - caution against limitless reopening of CIRP once judicial approval becomes final. Conclusion: The precedents relied upon by Respondents do not mandate denial here; factual matrix (verified/recorded claims; remitted plan; pending AA approval) requires following precedents allowing inclusion and addendum preparation. Final Disposition and Directions (as applied to the issues) 1. The Adjudicating Authority's orders dismissing the pending IAs for being beyond the 90-day period were set aside. 2. The appellants' claims as reflected in the RP's affidavit/records are to be dealt with by the Resolution Applicant by preparing a second addendum to the resolution plan and treating appellants as financial creditors in a class with the same treatment afforded to other homebuyers; this exercise to be completed within the prescribed period directed by the Tribunal. 3. The appellants shall not be relegated to the refund-only clause (50% principal cap) of the plan; the addendum must reflect appropriate treatment consistent with RP verification and CoC consideration, and the Adjudicating Authority shall consider the addendum when adjudicating plan approval. 4. Parties to bear their own costs. (Cross-references: see Issues 1-4 above regarding scope and reasoning.)