TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 624
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of their residential apartment in the real estate project of M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited (the "Corporate Debtor"). 2. The erstwhile Corporate Debtor, M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, an IREO Group company, undertook development of integrated residential townships in Punjab, including the project IREO Rise (Gardenia) situated in Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The project, conceived as a modern residential complex, envisaged delivery of multiple residential blocks with allied amenities and facilities. 3. The Appellants both residents of Bengaluru, booked an apartment in the said project in the year 2010. On 27.05.2011, they executed an Apartment Buyer's Agreement with the Corporate Debtor for purchase of Apartment No. GBD-00-001 in Block D. Against the total sale consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-, the Appellants paid Rs. 57,56,684/-, constituting almost the entirety of the contractual amount, the balance being agreed to be adjusted on account of delay in delivery of possession. 4. As per the buyer's agreement, possession was to be handed over on or before 27.11.2013. The Corporate Debtor, however, failed to deliver possession within the agreed period, or thereafter. Lef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Resolution Plan, the treatment of homebuyer claims was governed by Clause 18.4, with distinct provisions for timely claims and belated claims. 9. Despite the admitted inclusion of the Appellants claim in the list of financial creditors, possession of the allotted apartment was not delivered. Constrained thereby, the Appellants approached the Adjudicating Authority seeking directions to the Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant for execution of the conveyance deed and handover of possession, which was rejected. Their appeal before the NCLAT met with the same fate and was dismissed, resulting in the impugned order now under challenge before us. SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the entire approach of the Adjudicating Authority and the NCLAT is vitiated by a fundamental misappreciation of facts and misapplication of the relevant clauses of the approved Resolution Plan. It is urged that the Appellants are bona fide homebuyers, who, having paid a sum of Rs. 57,56,684/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-, have acquired a vested right in the apartment allotted to them in IREO Rise (Gardenia).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t having been paid. Relegating the Appellants to a reduced refund, despite the claim being admitted by Resolution Professional, undermines both the resolution plan and the scheme of the code. SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT(S) 16. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant (Respondent No(s). 2 and 3) submits that the Appellants failed to file any valid claim in respect of their apartment within the statutory timelines prescribed by the Code and the public announcement dated 22.10.2018. The Interim Resolution Professional categorically stipulated in the aforesaid public announcement, that claims be submitted either by electronic means or at the notified address in New Delhi. The alleged physical filing at the Mohali project office on 11.01.2019 is denied, on the ground that neither the Resolution Professional nor his staff operated from the Mohali address. 17. Learned Counsel assert that the Form-CA relied upon by the Appellants itself calculates interest upto 07.02.2020, demonstrating preparation and filing only on that date. It is urged that this is clear evidence that the form was in fact prepared and filed only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, the Appellants are entitled either the aforesaid apartment or the amount reflecting in the list of creditors along with interest till the date of realization. 23. The Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant, however, opposed the application, denying that any claim had been filed on 11.01.2019, and asserting that the only claim filed by the Appellants was on 07.02.2020, well after the Committee of Creditors had approved the Resolution Plan on 23.08.2019. It was argued that the Appellants claim was therefore squarely covered by Clause 18.4(xi), which provided for refund of only 50% of the principal amount paid. 24. Vide order dated 26.07.2023, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application. It recorded that there was no proof to substantiate the assertion of a claim having been filed on 11.01.2019 and held that the claim was in fact filed only on 07.02.2020, subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019. Noting that the Resolution Plan had been duly approved and attained finality, the NCLT held that the Appellants claim was to be dealt with strictly in accordance with Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e project IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali developed by the erstwhile Corporate Debtor M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and having admittedly paid a sum of Rs. 57,56,684/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-, are to be treated as belated claimants entitled only to refund of 50% of their principal deposit under Clause 18.4(xi), or whether, their claim having been duly verified and incorporated in the list of creditors, they are entitled to possession in terms of Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan. 29. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the Appellants are bona fide homebuyers, having booked an apartment with the Corporate Debtor as far back as 2010, and having executed a Buyer's Agreement on 27.05.2011. A sum of Rs. 57,56,684/-, constituting almost entirety of the sale consideration, stands paid. The balance was contractually adjustable against penalty for delay in handing over possession. 30. The case of the Appellants rests on two principal pillar(s): first, that their claim was initially submitted on 11.01.2019 in physical form at the project office at Mohali; and second, that pursuant to the Resolution Professional's email dated 31.01.2020 inviting homebuyers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicant, on the basis of which the resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum to the resolution plan, which may be placed before the committee of creditors for consideration....." In this backdrop, the Resolution Professional rightly admitted the claim of the Appellants to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684/- and reflected it at Serial No. 636 in the list of financial creditors. 34. It is next necessary to examine the structure of Clause 18.4 of the Resolution Plan, which prescribes distinct treatments for different categories of allottees. Clause 18.4(ii) stipulates that where the claim has been filed and admitted by the Resolution Professional, and the allotment letter issued, the claim shall be honored in full. Clause 18.4(vi)(a) sets out the payment plan for existing allottees, providing for handover of units or execution of conveyance. By contrast, Clause 18.4(xi) is residuary in nature, applying where no claim has been filed, or if filed, not verified by the Resolution Professional, or if verified, not communicated to the Resolution Applicant; such allottees are extended only a reduced benefit of refund of 50% of the principal amount deposited. Clause 18.4(xix) clarifies that....