TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the appellants, in view of the registered agreement to sell and the record in the corporate debtor's virtual data room, were entitled to be treated as genuine homebuyers under Category A of the resolution plan; (ii) whether the appellants' belated claim could be rejected when the relevant allotment and payment details were already available with the interim resolution professional and the resolution professional failed to notify them.
Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to be treated as genuine homebuyers under Category A of the resolution plan.
Analysis: The registered agreement to sell dated 23.04.2012, the virtual data room extract, and the repayment trail showed that Unit No. 1002 had been allotted to the appellants and that the corporate debtor's records reflected the transaction. The registered agreement placed the appellants on a higher footing than a mere unregistered reservation or allotment letter. The competing claim relied on by the resolution professional was found to be based on reservation letters and an investment-linked arrangement, indicating a speculative investment rather than a genuine home purchase. The appellants had also confined their present claim to the contractual flat consideration, which supported their bona fides.
Conclusion: The appellants were held entitled to be treated as genuine homebuyers and to be placed in Category A of the resolution plan.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellants' belated claim could be rejected despite the allotment and payment details being available in the corporate debtor's records and virtual data room.
Analysis: The record showed that the interim resolution professional was aware of the appellants' agreement to sell, but no meaningful communication regarding the CIRP was produced to show that the appellants had been notified. The rejection of the claim rested only on delay, although the relevant information was already available in the corporate debtor's records and was not properly considered while preparing the information memorandum and resolution plan. The inconsistent stands taken by the resolution professional regarding the payments also showed lack of due diligence. In these circumstances, the belated filing could not defeat a claim that was already traceable from the corporate debtor's records.
Conclusion: The belated claim could not be rejected, and the rejection order was liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellants' claim was directed to be admitted in Category A of the resolution plan as an addendum.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a homebuyer's registered allotment and payment details are already reflected in the corporate debtor's records and virtual data room, a mere delay in filing the claim cannot justify exclusion from the resolution plan, particularly when the stakeholder was not duly notified during CIRP.
TaxTMI 
