TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 128, 129, - -<br>Insolvency & Bankruptcy<br>[ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) And [ Arun Baroka ] Member ( Technical ) For Appellant : Mr. Ketan Madan and Mr. Dhananjay Jain , Advocates JUDGMENT ( Hybrid Mode ) Per : Barun Mitra , Member ( Technical ) The present set of four appeals filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 ('IBC' in short) by the Appellants arise out of the common Order dated 24.10.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi-III) in IA Nos. 112, 77, 599 & 89 of 2024 respectively in CP(IB) No. 1768(ND)/2018. By the impugned order, the Adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....November 2023. Since the Appellant was unaware of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, he was unable to file his claim before the Resolution Professional ("RP" in short) of EIL or CEPL within the prescribed time line. 5. It has been admitted by the Appellant that he was unable to adhere to the prescribed time-line within which he was required to file the claim before the RP. By the time, the Appellant could file their claim, the resolution plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA" in short) had already been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant filed their claim before the SRA by email dated 10.12.2023 along with all documents including payment receipts and requested the SRA to consider their claims. The Appellant h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns) No. 390 of 2022 wherein it has been clearly held that claim of home-buyers who could not file their claims but whose claims are reflected in the record of the Corporate Debtor ought to be included in the Information Memorandum. It was also pointed out that the SRA cannot be unfair to the Appellant simply because their claims were not reflected in the Information Memorandum of the Corporate Debtor. It was contended that the provisions of IBC have been misused to extinguish the claims of bonafide creditors while paving way for unjust enrichment for the SRA. 8. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the records carefully. 9. When we see the material on record, we notice tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m or not filed claim within the extended period provided under Clauses 6.5 and 6.13(iv)(c) of the resolution plan. In terms of the above-cited clauses, those who had not filed claim within six months from the date of submission of the resolution plan, the belated claim was to be accepted with additional charges of Rs 700 per sq.ft. and those who had not filed claim between six to twelve months from the date of submission of resolution plan the same was to be accepted on payment of additional charge of Rs 2000 per. sq.ft. Para 6.13(iv)(c) provided that no claim would be accommodated after a period of twelve months. The Appellant undisputedly filed their claim after 27 months from the expiry of one year period and hence the SRA was not expect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aims, the resolution plan had been approved by the Adjudicating Authority already and the claims had been filed after lapse of 2 years and 9 months from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. 13. More importantly, the Puneet Kaur judgment cannot come to the aid of the Appellant since this judgement has itself adverted attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (2021) 9 SCC 657 which held that once resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and all claims which are not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 15. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s RP Infrastructure Ltd. vs Mukul Kumar & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021 that even after the resolution plan is approved by the CoC and is pending before the Adjudicating Authority, new claims cannot be imposed upon the resolution applicant. The relevant excerpts of the judgement reads as under: "21. The mere fact....