TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Rishabh Nigam, Ms. Kshirja Agarwal, Ms. Mansi, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Harish Taneja, Ms. Manvi Jain, Mr. Anuj Maheshwari, Advocates for RP JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. These Appeals have been filed against the same order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Principal Bench, New Delhi in different IAs filed by the Appellants before the NCLT praying for acceptance of their belated claims with other reliefs. By the impugned order dated 22.01.2025, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the IAs filed by the Appellants seeking admission of the claims observing that the Applicants were filed beyond 90 days of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commencement date. Aggrieved by the order, these Appeals have been filed. 2. We need to first notice the brief background facts giving rise to these Appeals: 2.1. The Corporate Debtor- 'Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd.' is a Real Estate Company which proposed a group housing scheme "Ridge Residency" at Plot No. GH 001, Sector 135 Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The Appellants herein applied for allotment of the residential unit in the said scheme. Company issued an allotment letter dated 29.09.2011 in fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....came to know about the commencement of the CIRP in the year 2023/2024. Appellant- Ms. Reena came to know about the CIRP in August 2023. Other Appellants also came to know about the CIRP on different dates in 2023 and 2024. Appellant- Ms. Reena filed a claim on 11.08.2023 in Form CA as Financial Creditors in a Class. Other Appellants also filed their claims on different dates which shall be noticed subsequently. The Resolution Professional after receiving the claim on 11.08.2023 of Ms. Reena, on the same day sent a reply by e-mail expressing its inability to admit the claim on the ground of delay. Ms. Reena was advised to approach the Adjudicating Authority and in event the Adjudicating Authority directs only then the claim can be admitted. Other Appellants also filed their claims and their claims were rejected on the ground of delay. All the Appellants thereafter filed their applications under Section 60(5) of the IBC before the Adjudicating Authority praying for acceptance of their claims with other reliefs. Appellant- Ms. Reena filed IA No.4906 of 2023 in August 2023 itself where following prayers were made:- "a) Allow the instant Application; b) Condone the del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Reena, the Appellant filed Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.817 of 2024 which was decided along with two other Appeals by judgment of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2024. This Tribunal after considering the submissions of the Appellant as well as the Resolution Professional and the SRA disposed of the Appeals without interfering in the order dated 05.03.2024. Adjudicating Authority was however, directed to consider and dispose of the application as noted in the order dated 05.03.2024. SRA was directed to resubmit the Resolution Plan before the CoC after decision taken by the Adjudicating Authority in the applications filed by the Appellant. 2.6. The SRA also filed an application for being impleaded in the application filed by the Appellants, Adjudicating Authority passed an order dated 13.12.2024 directed impleadment of the SRA in the IA filed by the homebuyers. Appellant- Ms. Reena also filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.54 of 2025 challenging the order of impleadment of SRA which appeal came to be dismissed on 13.01.2025. This Tribunal, however, observed that by impleadment of SRA, there is no expression of merits by the Adjudicating Authority which are still open to be consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and because the Appellant could not become aware of the ongoing CIRP and, accordingly, could not file the claim within the stipulated time. The Appellant filed the claim on 14.08.2023. The date of rejection of the claim by RP was 16.08.2023. Appellant filed I.A. No. 4533 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking direction to the RP to admit their belated claim. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 359 of 2025 The present appeal has been filed by Yashveer Singh (Appellant), against the order dated 22.01.2025, passed in I.A. No. 5923 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018. Appellant was allotted unit no. J-0606, by allotment letter dated 06.09.2013, having area 1075 sq. ft. for consideration of INR 41,17,773. The Appellant made total payment of INR 32,11,234. The Appellant's reasons for making a delayed claim before the RP were that at the time of initiation of the CIRP the Appellant was not in India, and was in the USA for work purposes. That later could not come back to India on time due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. That, although the RP had sent an email to the Appellant, the same went into the Spam Folder of the mail box and the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P to admit their belated claim. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 408 of 2025 The present appeal has been filed by Mr. Arjun Singh (Appellant), against the order dated 22.01.2025, passed in I.A. No. 1509 of 2024 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018. Appellant was allotted unit no. J-0708, by allotment letter dated 27.03.2012, having area 1225 sq. ft. for consideration of INR 49,70,150. The Appellant made total payment of INR 46,69,841. The Appellant's reasons for making delayed claim before the RP were that the Appellant had filed his claim with a delay of 73 days, but inadvertently due to a typographical error the claim was sent on an incorrect address. Later due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and due to several serious health related issues in the family, the Appellant could not follow up with the RP on the said claim. The Appellant filed the claim on 31.01.2020. The said claim was not admitted by the RP as it was not only belated but also because it was not received by the RP as it was sent on a wrong email address. Appellant filed I.A. No. 1509 of 2024 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking direction to the RP to admit their belated claim. Comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otment letter dated 18.06.2012, having an area of 1125 sq. ft. for consideration of INR 56,20,433. The Appellant made a total payment of INR 56,20,433. The Appellant's reasons for making a delayed claim before the RP were that that the Appellants are the homemakers and were not aware of the Insolvency proceeding of the Corporate Debtor. That one of the Appellant is the wife of the Government Servant who was posted in Andaman and Nicobar and when they returned backed to Delhi in the year 2023 then they came to know about the commencement of insolvency proceeding against the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant filed the claim on 19.05.2023. The date of rejection of the claim by RP was 19.05.2023. Appellant filed I.A. No. 4242 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking direction to the RP to admit their belated claim. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 494 of 2025 The present appeal has been filed by Anuradha Mittal (Appellant), against the order dated 22.01.2025, passed in I.A. No. 3401 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018. Appellant was allotted unit no. G-1401, by allotment letter dated 22.12.2011, having an area of 1720 sq. ft. for consideration of IN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from severe COVID- 19 illness, during this time. Moreover, there was a series of serious medical conditions in the family of the Appellant that prevented her from making the said claim on time. Further, the Appellant came to know about the CIRP only in March 2023. The Appellant filed the claim on 29.03.2023. The date of rejection of the claim by RP was 01.04.2023. Appellant filed I.A. No. 2088 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking direction to the RP to admit their belated claim. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 511 of 2025 The present appeal has been filed by Daud Judas Minj (Appellant), against the order dated 22.01.2025, passed in I.A. No. 2979 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018. Appellant was allotted unit no. A-0607, by allotment letter dated 16.07.2013, having an area of 1075 sq. ft. for consideration of INR 49,08,500. The Appellant made a total payment of INR 42,33,114. The Appellant's reasons for making a delayed claim before the RP were that both Appellants were medical practitioners and were posted in hospitals on high alert during the COVID-19 pandemic. That they were both required to stay in isolation as part of the guidelines ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Authority, seeking direction to the RP to admit their belated claim. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 575 of 2025 The present appeal has been filed by Sarita Kishore (Appellant), against the order dated 22.01.2025, passed in I.A. No. 2691 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018. Appellant was allotted unit no. Q-0502, by allotment letter dated 27.12.2011, having an area of 1500 sq. ft. for consideration of INR 49,29,750. The Appellant made a total payment of INR 41,40,461. The Appellant's reasons for making a delayed claim before the RP were that she is residing in UAE and was therefore not aware of the CIRP, and the process of filing claim was also hindered due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Appellant filed the claim on 23.02.2023. The date of rejection of the claim by RP was 28.02.2023. Appellant filed I.A. No. 2691 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking direction to the RP to admit their belated claim. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 720 of 2025 The present appeal has been filed by Shashi Bala (Appellant), against the order dated 22.01.2025, passed in I.A. No. 3790 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018. Appellant was allotted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018. Appellant was allotted unit no. Q-1204, by allotment letter dated 26.12.2011, having an area of 1720 sq. ft. for consideration of INR 54,98,840. The Appellant made a total payment of INR 54,98,840. The Appellant's reasons for making a delayed claim before the RP were that the Appellant is senior citizen and retired pensioner of Government of India of 72 years of age and has been under crucial health conditions since 2019. That the Appellant has undergone multiple heart operations and has been under medical confinement since then and did not have access to the news papers of New Delhi/NCR and also could not visit the Corporate Debtor due to health conditions. The Appellant filed the claim on 16.06.2020. The date of rejection of the claim by RP was 24.03.2021. Appellant filed I.A. No. 6268 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking direction to the RP to admit their belated claim. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 729 of 2025 The present appeal has been filed by Jamil Akhtar (Appellant), against the order dated 22.01.2025, passed in I.A. No. 5147 of 2024 in C.P. (IB) NO. 923/PB/2018. Appellant was allotted unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Adjudicating Authority dated 05.03.2024 sending back the plan was for only consideration of the claim of NOIDA to treat the statutory claim of the NOIDA as Secured Creditor and this occasion does not warrant any other modification of the plan is erroneous. It is submitted that although the order dated 05.03.2024 was remanding the plan for consideration of the claim of the NOIDA as Secured Creditor but the said order in no manner preclude the consideration of the belated claim filed by the Appellant which were pending consideration. The order dated 08.05.2025 of this Tribunal clearly envisaged the consideration of the belated claim of the Appellant also and the fact that this Tribunal directed the SRA to await the decision was with clear intent that in event the applications are allowed, their claims have also to be reflected in the Resolution Plan. Adjudicating Authority has not considered the application on merits and has rejected the application only on the ground that it is filed beyond 90 days of CIRP commencement date. Counsel for the Appellant submits that from the Affidavit filed by the Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority, it is an admitted case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regarding CIRP progress. 5. Counsel for the SRA refuting the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellants in these Appeals had not filed their claim within the time allowed in the publication issued by Resolution Professional i.e. upto 03.09.2019. The Resolution Plan was approved on 04.03.2020. no claim could have been admitted after approval of the Resolution Plan. It is submitted that the order dated 05.03.2024 which was passed by the Adjudicating Authority remitting the Resolution Plan to the SRA for re-submission only contemplated re-submission of the plan by SRA after taking into consideration of the claim of NOIDA as Secured Creditor as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhjit Singh Soni (supra). The order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 05.03.2024 did not contemplate consideration of any other claim. Referring to the order of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2023 passed in Appeal filed against the order dated 05.03.2024, it is submitted that this Tribunal also has clearly observed that the order dated 05.03.2024 only contemplated consideration of the case of the NOIDA and the said order dated 05.03.2024 cannot enure to the benefit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court which we shall consider while considering the submissions in detail. 8. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From the materials brought on the record following are the facts which are undisputed: - (i) The Appellants were allotted different units in the project of the Corporate Debtor, Ridge Residency, Sector 135 Noida. Allotment letters were issued in favour of the Appellants in the year 2011 and thereafter. (ii) Appellants after the allotment of different units have made payments to the Corporate Debtor from time to time. The payments made by the Corporate Debtor are reflected in the account of the Corporate Debtor. Affidavit filed by the Resolution Professional after the order dated 05.03.2024 and 11.06.2024 reflects the amount received from the Appellants towards allotment of various units which details were before the Adjudicating Authority. (iii) All the Appellants had filed their claims before the Resolution Professional after 04.03.2020 i.e. after approval of the plan of the Respondent No.2 by the CoC. 10. The claims of the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndicates that the appellant was advised to submit its claim in Form B (meant for operational creditor) in place of Form C (meant of financial creditor). But, assuming the appellant did not heed the advice, once the claim was submitted with proof, it could not have been overlooked merely because it was in a different Form. As already discussed above, in our view the Form in which a claim is to be submitted is directory. What is necessary is that the claim must have support from proof. Here, the resolution plan fails not only in acknowledging the claim made but also in mentioning the correct figure of the amount due and payable. According to the resolution plan, the amount outstanding was Rs. 13,47,40,819/- whereas, according to the appellant, the amount due and for which claim was made was Rs. 43,40,31,951/-This omission or error, as the case may be, in our view, materially affected the resolution plan as it was a vital information on which there ought to have been application of mind. Withholding the information adversely affected the interest of the appellant because, firstly, it affected its right of being served notice of the meeting of the COC, available under Section 24 (3) (c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch approvals. But neither NCLT nor NCLAT dealt with those aspects. Relief 55. As we have found that neither NCLT nor NCLAT while deciding the application/appeal of the appellant took note of the fact that, (a) the appellant had not been served notice of the meeting of the COC; (b) the entire proceedings up to the stage of approval of the resolution plan were ex parte to the appellant, (c) the appellant had submitted its claim, and was a secured creditor by operation of law, yet the resolution plan projected the appellant as one who did not submit its claim; and (d) the resolution plan did not meet all the parameters laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, we are of the considered view that the appeals of the appellant are entitled to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2022 is set aside. The order dated 04.08.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the resolution plan is set aside. The resolution plan shall be sent back to the COC for re- submission after satisfying the parameters set out by the Code as exposited above. There shall be no order as to costs" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove, resubmission of the Resolution Plan by the SRA has to await the decision of all other Applications, which was deferred by the Adjudicating Authority for consideration on 30.04.2024, as per order dated 05.03.2024 itself. There is no doubt that claim of the NOIDA has to be considered as per the direction dated 05.03.2024 as Secured Creditor, but since other Applications are still pending, we are of the view that ends of justice will be served in disposing of these Appeal(s) with following directions: (I) The order dated 05.03.2024 passed by Adjudicating Authority is not being interfered with. (II) The Adjudicating Authority may consider and dispose of the Applications as noted in the order dated 05.03.2024, which were deferred for consideration on 30.04.2024 at an early date. (III) The SRA, who has to resubmit the Resolution Plan before the CoC for consideration, will await the decision of Adjudicating Authority on the Applications, which are pending and as noted in the order dated 05.03.2024. The Resolution Plan be put before the CoC for consideration and voting after incorporating the directions of Adjudicating Authority in above regard. (IV....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that the plan was sent back for re-submission qua the treatment of the NOIDA. The Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 4 in the end has made following observations:- "4. ............But for the resubmission of plan basis NOIDA's claim, other applicants have no basis to be considered because the plan has been approved by CoC." 17. The above observation of the Adjudicating Authority cannot be approved. The fact that the Adjudicating Authority by the order dated 05.03.2024 while disposing off the application of NOIDA directed for re- submission of the plan after considering the claim of the NOIDA did not in any manner has affect on the applications of the Appellants which were pending. We have already noticed above that the Adjudicating Authority in the order dated 05.03.2024 in the end of the order has noted all the applications filed by the Appellants as has directed in the said application to come up for hearing on 30.04.2024. The Adjudicating Authority itself has noticed the order of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2024 and the directions given in the said order which have been extracted in paragraph 3 of the order of the Adjud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lected in the records of the Corporate Debtor which ought to have to be included in the Information Memorandum and the Resolution Applicant ought to have taken note of the said liability and appropriately dealt with in the plan. This Tribunal in the said case has accepted the above submission and has directed the Resolution Professional to submit the details of homebuyers whose details are reflected in the records including their claims to the Resolution Applicant on the basis of which Resolution Applicant was to prepare an addendum to the Resolution Plan and place the same before the CoC for consideration. In the judgment of "Puneet Kaur vs. M/s. K.V. Developers Private Limited", this Tribunal framed four questions for consideration in paragraph 12 which is as follows:- "12. From the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, following are the questions, which arise for consideration in these Appeal(s): (1) Whether the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the IAs filed by the Appellant(s) seeking direction to include their claims, which was belatedly filed? (2) Whether after approval of the Resolution Plan on 20.07.2021 by CoC, the claim of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r resolution as is seen in the present case. To mitigate the hardship of the Appellant, we thus, are of the view that ends of justice would be met, if direction is issued to Resolution Professional to submit the details of Homebuyers, whose details are reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor including their claims, to the Resolution Applicant, on the basis of which Resolution Applicant shall prepare an addendum to the Resolution Plan, which may be placed before the CoC for consideration. The above exercise be completed within a period of three months from today and the addendum along with minutes of the CoC be placed before the Adjudicating Authority at the time of approval of Resolution Plan, which is pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority. The Resolution Applicant may also bring into the notice of the Adjudicating Authority the order of this date, so that the Adjudicating Authority may await the addendum and minutes of the CoC, which may be considered along with approval of the Resolution Plan. We thus, dispose of these Appeal(s) with following directions: (1) The Resolution Professional shall provide all details of Homebuyers along with their c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plan by the CoC. The claim of the appellant was rejected by the RP on same day i.e. 19.09.2022 which led to the filing of I.A. No. 4954 of 2022 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application observing that the plan was approved on 07.05.2021 in the 11th meeting of the CoC by 90.66% votes and the claim is highly belated." 22. Submission was raised by the Appellant- Rahul Jain that the Appellant's claim is reflected in the Information Memorandum and the payments of the amount of the Appellant is also reflected. The said submission has been noted in paragraphs 4 and 5 which is as follows:- "4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the asset of the appellant has been reflected in the Information Memorandum by the RP and has also drawn our attention to the list of unit holders who had not filed the claim in which name of the appellant is at Sl. No. 52 in which it is reflected that the selling price of the unit is Rs.60,00,300/-, the amount received by the Corporate Debtor is Rs.49,26,674/- and the balance amount is Rs. 10,73,626/-. 5. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the same decision of this court in the case of Puneet Kaur & Ors. Vs. KV....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reflected in the records of the CD including their claims, to the Resolution applicant, on the basis of which resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum to the resolution plan, which may be placed before the CoC for consideration." 24. This Tribunal ultimately issued following direction in paragraph 17:- "17. Thus, keeping in view the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the controversy in hand is covered by the case of Puneet Kaur (Supra) and therefore, while allowing the present appeal and setting aside the impugned order, we direct the RP to submit the detail of the appellant reflected in the record of the CD including their claim to the resolution applicant on the basis of which the resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum to the resolution plan which may be placed before the CoC for consideration. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from today and the addendum and the minutes of the CoC at the time of finalizing the resolution plan shall be considered by the AA at the time of the approval of the resolution plan which is pending consideration before the AA. The Resolution Professional may also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....including payments received. 27. Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in "Sonia Kapoor vs. Arunava Sikdar, IRP Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.- Comp. Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.28 of 2024" which was also a case where application filed by homebuyers for acceptance of belated claim was rejected. In the above case, Resolution Plan was approved thereafter the claim was filed by the Appellant. The application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority against which Appeal was allowed. Appellant in this case has also relied on the judgments of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. M/s. K.V. Developers Private Limited" (supra) and "Rahul Jain vs. Nilesh Sharma" (supra). This Tribunal after hearing the parties, allowed the Appeal and has directed the Resolution Professional to give details of Resolution Applicant who was directed to include the Appellant's claim in addendum and place it before the CoC for consideration. Appeal was allowed in terms of the direction issued in Rahul Jain's case (supra). 28. Counsel for the Appellant has placed heavy reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Amit Nehra & Anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced reliance on Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 245, wherein it was observed as follows: "......However, we are of the view that the claim of those homebuyers, who could not file their claims, but whose claims were reflected in the record of the corporate debtor, ought to have been included in the information memorandum and resolution applicant, ought to have taken note of the said liabilities and should have appropriately dealt with them in the resolution plan. Non-consideration of such claims, which are reflected from the record, leads to inequitable and unfair resolution as is seen in the present case. To mitigate the hardship of the appellant, we thus, are of the view that ends of justice would be met, if direction is issued to the resolution professional to submit the details of homebuyers, whose details are reflected in the records of the corporate debtor including their claims, to the resolution applicant, 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 Professi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal, set aside the order of the NCLT and NCLAT and directed for execution of conveyance deed. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court fully supports the submission raised by Counsel for the Appellant. 32. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Resolution Plan which was earlier approved on 04.03.2020 has been remitted back by the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 05.03.2024 to consider the claim of NOIDA in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhjit Singh Soni (supra) and Appeal was filed against the said order before this Tribunal where this Tribunal categorically held that in view of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 05.03.2024, the Resolution Plan dated 04.03.2020 is no more in existence. We have already noticed the direction of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2024 directing the Adjudicating Authority to consider the applications of all the Appellants. 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 outs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refunds in clause 18.4(xx) will be written off in full and shall be deemed to be permanently extinguished by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan and the Company or the Resolution Applicant shall at no point of time be, directly or indirectly, held responsible or liable in relation thereto. xx. The Plan has envisaged refund to Allottees and Decree Holders at the end of Qtr. 12 to the extent of 50% of the principal amount under various cases such as delay in payment, cancellation of units, filing of claim after submission of this plan, etc, from the Specially designated Compensation and Refund fund of an aggregate sum of INR 6 Crores. The said Compensation and Refund fund shall first be utilised to pay off the claims of the above said Refunds on a pro-rata basis for a maximum of 50% of principal amount. The balance amount from the Compensation and Refund Fund after paying off the Refunds shall be utilised to pay Compensation, interest and penalty to the Allottees on pro-rata basis. The aggregate sum of all refunds or compensation due to allottees and decree holders shall not exceed INR 6 Crores." 33. When the amount paid by the Appellants is dul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....treated in the Resolution Plan. While entertaining Appeals by this Tribunal on 28.01.2025, we passed following interim order:- "In the meantime, process may go on however it shall abide by the result of the appeal." 34. Learned Counsel for the SRA has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr.- (2023) 10 SCC 718" in support of his submission that Resolution Applicant cannot be saddled with new claims. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case made following observations in paragraph 21 to 23:- "21. The second question is whether the delay in the filing of claim by the appellant ought to have been condoned by Respondent 1. The IBC is a time bound process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which the time can be increased. The question is whether the present case would fall within those parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of 287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the corporate debtor is an undoubted fact. We believe that the appellant ought to have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid circumstances to find out whether the corpor....