AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al justice and settled legal procedure. Brief Facts 2. The dispute arises out of the Appellant's claim over a residential unit (Flat No. 1501, Tower P-2) booked by his mother in 2009, which was claimed to be later on transferred to the Appellant with the consent of the Corporate Debtor through an NOC, Allotment Letter, Possession Letter, and a duly registered Agreement to Sell dated 14.12.2016. The Appellant claims to be in peaceful possession of the unit since 2016 and had paid a substantial part of the consideration amount. 3. Subsequently, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 17.03.2022, and the Appellant filed his claim under Form CA with the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), asserting his rights over the unit and willingness to pay the balance amount. The Appellant was admitted as a creditor with 0% voting rights and participated in CoC proceedings. A resolution plan submitted by Respondent No. 2- Devvrat Developers Pvt Ltd was approved by the CoC and the NCLT. However, after approval of the plan, Respondent No. 2 sought to evict the Appellant, despite his prior possession and documentary entitlements. The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he course of the CIRP, R2 - M/s. Devvrat Developers Pvt Ltd. has submitted a resolution plan wherein the name of the Appellant was reflected. This was approved on 05.08.2023 by the CoC and on 05.04.2024 by the Adjudicating Authority. Later on R2 - SRA with the help of police- initiated eviction against the Appellant. Appellant claims that he had made a payment of Rs. 22,19,983/- and submitted that Appellant is ready to pay the balance consideration to R2 as per the terms of letter of allotment and agreement to sale after the execution of registered sale deed in its favour. However, the Respondent did not pay any heed to the request of the Appellant. 8. Respondent No. 2 affixed a notice outside the unit to prosecute the trespassers and therefore he was constrained to approach Adjudicating Authority vide I.A. No. 393(MP)/2024 under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. Later another I.A. No. 424(MP)/2024 under Rule 11 was moved to handover the possession of the unit to the Applicant as it was the Appellant who was dispossessed during the pendency of the proceedings under I.A. No. 393(MP)/2024. Adjudicating Authority dismissed both I.A. No. 393(MP)/2024 and 424(MP)/2024 on the ground th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment within their discretion. Submissions of the Respondent -2-SRA 14. The Applicant has in a manner misrepresented his case before the Adjudicating Authority as well as this Appellate Tribunal as if he had made any disbursements. The case of Appellant is marred by inconsistent averments and claims, contradicting itself. It is a settled position of law that one who does not come with clean hands is not entitled to any relief. The case of the Appellant is hit by the same principal and hence he does not deserve any relief. 15. No proof of Disbursement: The Appellant, a Doctor, has failed, avoided and neglected to furnish evidence of, as claimed by the Appellant to have reflected in the books of the Company. 16. The Erstwhile Management of the Corporate Debtor has been absconding since many years prior to commencement of insolvency proceedings. It is well within public domain that numerous FIRs as well as Criminal Cases are pending against the Erstwhile Management. Even the last Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor being of many years prior to the CIRP, was also obtained through public domain since the erstwhile Management has been absconding from a time period much prior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7,69,983/- in cash for other charges during the DEMONETISATION PERIOD which happened on the evening of 08.11.2016. It is submitted that during that period between 09.11.2016 till for 31.12.2016, no person had enough cash of that amount as claimed. Therefore, the very timing and legal position belies the claim of cash payment of Rs. 7,69,983/- allegedly made on 18.11.2016. c. The Possession Letter dated 18th November, 2016, as annexed as Annexure A-3 (Pg. 75) also cannot be relied upon since firstly it wrongly states that complete payment has been received by the Company, and secondly that the possession is delivered to Mrs. Anjali Jain. This letter is contrary to the registered sale agreement dated 14.12.2016, which record that the agreement is without possession (Pg. 104). If the Appellant is to be believed, then the same becomes the case of stamp duty evasion. It is the legal position that the registered document is superior than unregistered document and contents of registered documents cannot be negated by unregistered doubtful documents, this is reinforced by the timing of demonetization of old currency notes. d. Even the Cheque details as mentioned therein ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as if he was a member of the CoC, however the same clearly reflects that the claim was not accepted by the RP and is reflected in the total comprehensive list of claimants during the CIRP, out of which any amount and percentage apart from 0 is reflected against names of only the ones whose claims are accepted. In fact, the admitted amount and voting % was shown as NIL, in itself indicates that the claim was received but not admitted. 21. The Appellant, who is a Doctor, being undisputedly vigilant of the ongoing CIRP, and taking note of the fact that he was not a member of the CoC, nor his claim were accepted by the RP, has clearly attempted to take a chance as he did not even once come before the Court during the CIRP if the RP had reflected a NIL Claim admitted qua him. The repeated queries as raised by the RP through email were also not answered to the satisfaction, which is evident from the record (Pg. 692). 22. It is only through Application bearing IA No. 393 of 2024, dated 28th August, 2024 (filed on 04.09.2024), that the Applicant who was in illegal possession of the flat and was asked to vacate the flat occupied by him, moved an application before the NCLT. Notably....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admitted. It is the lapse on the part of Applicant himself and the inconsistency/ irrelevancy of documents which led to non-admission of his claim, and the Appellant cannot at this belated stage come and seek protection after having failed to submit supporting documents consistent with his averments made in the claim form and in the Appeal. Even today no proofs are available on record to establish any disbursements made. The alleged documents relied by Appellant are all in the name of Mrs. Anjali Jain and the Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/son, therefore the application is not maintainable for want of locus. The Appellant is claiming payment of Rs. 14,50,000/- made by Cheques, however there in no proof submitted for the same, and the copies of the Passbook of the 2 pages as annexed only are illegible and it is not possible to ascertain the veracity of the claim. There is no material otherwise to substantiate the payment of cheques and even in the IA before NCLT, even the cheque date and numbers are not mentioned. It is impossible to believe that a person claiming to have made such payment of Rs. 14.50 lakhs, did not even keep bank records for such corresponding payments. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, Indore Bench in IA/393(MP)/2024 in C.P. (IB) No. 56(MP)/2021, whereby the Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Appellant's application seeking recognition of his claim as a Financial Creditor and consequential reliefs. 31. The Appellant assails the impugned order primarily on the ground that his claim had been duly admitted by the Resolution Professional and that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the same, despite the existence of documentary evidence reflecting his status as a homebuyer and creditor. The Respondents, on the other hand, have refuted the claims, alleging that the Appellant failed to furnish any proof of disbursement, had colluded with the erstwhile management, and that the documents relied upon were fabricated or contradictory. 32. The Appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority erred in dismissing his claim despite the Respondent No.1 (Resolution Professional) having admitted it. It is contended that the NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code in ignoring the binding interpretation laid down by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal in: i. ^1Dipco Private Limited vs. Jayesh Sanghrajka,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to admission, but rather indicates that the Resolution Professional had rejected the claim after due verification. Respondents place their relies on: o ^3Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta [(2020) 8 SCC 531], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and cannot be interfered with by judicial authorities except on limited grounds. o ^4RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Ors. [(2023) 8 SCC 1], reiterating that all claims must be crystallized during the CIRP period and that no "hydra- headed claims" can be entertained post approval of a Resolution Plan. o ^5Kuldip Gandotra vs. Union of India, 136 (2007) DLT 44 (DB), where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that a litigant approaching the court with unclean hands and concealment of material facts is disentitled to any equitable relief. 35. The Respondents thus submit that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly dismissed the Application and the present Appeal deserves to be rejected with costs. 36. We find that total consideration for the flat was Rs. 38 lakhs. The Appellant claims to have paid about Rs. 14.5 lakhs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m beyond the documentary record. 40. The registered Agreement for Sale dated 14.12.2016 records that the property was sold "without possession," directly contradicting the possession letter dated 18.11.2016. Such inconsistencies, coupled with the alleged cash transaction during demonetisation, cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents. In light of these contradictions, we find that the Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving any disbursement as defined under Section 5(8)(f) of the Code. With respect to allegations of collusion and not coming with clean hands we note that the Respondent's assertion regarding collusion with the absconding management finds support in the factual matrix. The Appellant's unexplained possession of a flat in an abandoned project, coupled with absence of consideration paid, lends credence to the finding of unauthorized occupation. 41. In ^5Kuldip Gandotra (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that a person who misleads the Court or conceals facts is not entitled to equitable relief. This principle squarely applies here, as the Appellant's contradictory statements erode credibility. 42. On the issue of the fina....