AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned judgement dated 11.08.2023 ("impugned Judgment") passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench at New Delhi ("Adjudicating Authority") whereby the application bearing IA no. 3044/2021, moved by the appellant, in CP(IB)-1771/ND/2018, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) commenced subsequent to the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 petition filed by Ms. Priyanshi Arora and Shri Manish Gupta was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional. The Public Announcement was issued by the Interim Resolution Professional and the last date of submission of claims was fixed as 29.10.2019. The appellant submitted his claim on 09.06.2021 to the RP on his official E-mail Id and also claimed to have submitted the Claim Form to the Resolution Professional on June 10, 2021 by speed post. However, his claim was not admitted by the RP for being time barred and on moving an application to the Ld. Tribunal the same was also dismissed by passing impugned order, which is the subject matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ockdown imposed and later on his calls were not responded by the Association which later on also submitted a Resolution plan which has also been approved. 7. It is further submitted that the last claim of the CD was approved by the RP on 10.03.2021 which clearly shows that the claim has been approved, verified and accepted by the Resolution professional, even after the last date mentioned in the Public Announcement issued and by the same was not issued widespread and is not in consonance with the Section 13, 15 of the Code and Regulation 6 as well as 6A of the CIRP regulations, 2016 and the Resolution Professional without collating and verifying the claim rejected the claim of the appellant, which is against the provision of the code. 8. It is further submitted that the reply received by the Appellant clearly shows that the information with regard to the claim of the appellant was already in the knowledge of the Resolution Professional, which was evident from the documents attached with the reply and apart from the Appellant there are other 135 Allottees who could not file their claims as per the data provided by the Resolution Professional, hence non consideration of such cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after the stipulated period of time and therefore, the same has been rightly rejected by him as well as by Ld. Adjudicating Authority and the same is not required to be interfered with. 12. It is further submitted that no proper explanation of delay occurred in submission of claim by the appellant has been given and the appellant cannot be allowed to delay the entire CIRP Process as the plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) has been approved by the CoC with 90.66% voting share in its 11th meeting held on 07.05.2021 and is pending for approval before Ld. Adjudicating Authority. 13. It is further submitted that in terms of the provision contained in Regulation 36 (2) (a) and Regulation 36 (2) (1) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 the respondent was only obliged to include the details of the assets and liabilities of the CD and he included the unit in question under the head of list of allottees who have not filed their claims. Attention of us has been drawn on the copy of IM dated 17.06.2020 which has also been enclosed as Annexure R-2 of the reply filed by the RP. 14. It is further submitted that unit in question of the appellant was duly reflected as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout any explanation did not file the claim within the stipulated time framework. 21. It is further submitted that throughout the CIRP the office bearers and members of the Respondent (Victory Ace Social Welfare Society) has given widest coverage to the publication of Form A and also to the submission of claims by the homebuyers and for this purpose they have created multiple social media pages and accounts, however, the appellant himself did not file any claim within the stipulated timeline. 22. It is further submitted that the Form G was published by the resolution professional inviting prospective resolution applicants to submit their expression of interest and resolution plan and before that the information memorandum prepared by the RP contained a list of homebuyers who have not submitted their claims was prepared and their names were mentioned in the CRM data of the CD and the name of the appellant has appeared at S. No. 57 of the said list under the heading of the homebuyers who have not submitted claims and in the meantime the SRA has submitted the Resolution Plan which has also been approved by the CoC with 90.66% of vote and is pending for approval before Ld. Adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the allotment along with membership fee was duly paid by the appellant to the CD till January, 2021. (ii) The appellant has filed his claim by submitting Form through Email to RP on 09.06.2021 on his official E-mail Id and also sent the Claim Form to the Resolution Professional, via speed post on June 10, 2021. (iii) The unit in question of the appellant was included by the RP in the Information Memorandum dated 17.06.2020 under the head of list of allottees who have not filed their claims. (iv) The RP did not admit the claim of the Appellant by giving the reason that the claim has not been presented within stipulated time and also that Resolution Plan submitted by the SRA (Respondent No.2) has been approved in the meeting of the Committee of Creditors (COC) dated 07.05.2021 and hence claim cannot be admitted as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulations made therein. (v) Appellants had filed applications bearing IA No. 3044 of 2021 before the Adjudicating Authority praying for admission of his belated claim which was rejected by passing of the impugned order. (vi) The resolution plan passed by the CoC is pending for appro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of their claim. However, their claims need to be dealt in a manner, which we shall deal in later part of this judgment. So far as second question is concerned this appellate Tribunal opined as under: - "18. It is thus clear that extinguishment of claim of the Appellant(s) shall happen only after approval of the Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The argument of the Respondents that since CoC has approved the Resolution Plan, the claim of the Appellant(s) have been extinguished, cannot be accepted as there is no extinguishment of claim of the Appellant(s) on approval of Plan by the CoC. Question No. (2) is answered accordingly." So far as question No. 3 and 4 are concerned, this appellate tribunal opined and concluded as under: "27. In the present case there is no denial that details of the Appellant(s) and other Homebuyers, who could not file their claims has not been reflected in the Information Memorandum. There being no detail of claims of the Appellant(s), the Resolution Applicant could not have been taken any consideration of the claim of the Appellant(s), hence, Resolution Plan as submitted by Resolution Applicant cannot be faulted. However, we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Authority while considering approval of the Resolution Plan, which is pending consideration in IA No.3447 of 2021 shall consider the addendum and the minutes of the CoC at the time of finalizing the Resolution Plan. 28. The Resolution Professional shall bring into the notice of the Adjudicating Authority, the order of this date, so as to enable the Adjudicating Authority to await the filing of addendum along with the minutes of the CoC. 29. The Appeal(s) are disposed of in view of the above terms. Parties shall bear their own costs." (Emphasis Given) 28. The aforesaid Puneet Kaur (Supra) was quoted with authority in a recent judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in Ms. Reena v. Rabindra Kumar Mintri and Anr.,(2025) ibclaw.in 867 NCLAT, wherein another case of this Tribunal namely Rahul Jain vs. Nilesh Sharma, Resolution Professional of Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd.- Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1662 of 2023 was considered in following words :- "21. Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on a Three Member Bench Judgment of this Tribunal in "Rahul Jain vs. Nilesh Sharma, Resolution Professional of Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd.- Company Appeal (AT) (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this court in the case of Puneet Kaur & Ors. Vs. KV Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) to contend that even if it is presumed that the appellant has not filed its claim even then this court has held that if the liability have been reflected in the Information memorandum then it is the duty of the RP to submit the detail of the Home buyers to the Resolution Applicant on the basis of which the Resolution Applicant shall prepare the resolution plan and place before the CoC for its consideration." 23. This Tribunal after hearing the parties has held that the homebuyers through details reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor are required to be considered and Resolution Applicant is to prepare an addendum in 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Appeal was also dismissed by this Tribunal. The Respondent in the case has relied on a clause 18.4 (xi) in Resolution Plan which provided refund of 50% principal amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and held that the claim which was resubmitted on 07.02.2020 and accepted by Resolution Professional, name of the Appellant being included in the list of creditors dated 30.04.2020, the claim could not have been rejected and the case of Appellant could not be held to be covered by Clause 18.4 (xi). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted the undisputed position in paragraph 32 which is as follows: - "32. The admitted and undisputed position remains that the Appellants claim was resubmitted on 07.02.2020; that it was duly verified by the Resolution Professional; and that it was incorporated in the published list of creditors dated 30.04.2020. Once such verification and incorporation occurred, the claim acquired full legal recognition within the CIRP process." 30. In paragraph 33 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the contention of Appellant- Amit Nehra relying on the judgment of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. M/s. K.V. Developers Private ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp;57,56,684/. Once so admitted, their case squarely falls within Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan. 36. The Respondent(s) reliance on Clause 18.4(xi) is misconceived. That clause is intended to apply only to allottees who had defaulted in filing or pursuing their claims. The Appellants cannot be so characterised, having paid nearly the entire consideration, submitted their claim, and had it duly verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional. 37. What is critical to note is that this is not a case of entertaining a fresh claim beyond the Resolution Plan. It concerns an allottee whose claim was verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional and reflected in the list of financial creditors well before approval of the Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. To disregard such an admitted claim and confine the Appellants to the limited benefit under Clause 18.4(xi) is not to preserve the binding effect of the plan but to misapply it. Clause 18.4 itself draws a clear distinction between verified claims and belated or unverified claims; to obliterate that distinction would render the scheme otiose. Relegating bona fide allotte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable to a commercial party. 23. The mere fact that the adjudicating authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel [Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531: (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443], the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC." "33. There are two distinguishing feature of the present case with the case of RPS Infrastructure (supra). The RPS Infrastructure (supra) was litigating with the Corporate Debtor even before start of CIRP hence, Supreme Court observed that they ought to have been vigilant and the RPS Infrastructure (supra) was a commercial entity. In the present case, we are concern with case or homebuyers whose allotments and payments are duly reflected in the books of accounts and record of Corporate Debtor". 34. Having regard to the reasons mentioned above and the law laid down in Puneet Kaur (Supra) as appr....