TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-homebuyer. 2. Coming to the brief facts of the case, the Corporate Debtor-M/s Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. was admitted into CIRP on 27.02.2023. A public announcement inviting claims from creditors was issued by the Resolution Professional ("RP" in short) on 07.07.2023. The Appellant-Homebuyer submitted its claim belatedly on 15.03.2024 as a creditor of the Corporate Debtor while the meeting of the Committee of Creditors ("CoC" in short) for voting on the resolution plan was convened on 19.03.2024. Hence, the RP did not verify the claim of the Appellant and did not place the same before the CoC in pursuance of the provisions of Regulation 13(1B) & 13(1C) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 ("CIRP Regulations" in short) which does not permit submission of claim within seven days before the CoC meeting. The Appellant, aggrieved by the decision of the RP, thereafter filed IA No. 604 of 2025 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking directions against the RP-Respondent for admission of their claim of Rs. 10,30,258/- by condoning the delay in filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aced on the judgment of this Tribunal in Sonia Kapoor Vs Arunava Sikdar, IRP, Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 28 of 2024 which also held that if the liability of the creditor is reflected in the records of the Corporate Debtor, the RP must forward such claims to the resolution applicant for inclusion through an addendum to the resolution plan, irrespective of the delay in the filing of the claim. 4. Refuting the contentions of the Appellant, Shri Atul Sood, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-RP submitted that the RP had acted in accordance with the relevant CIRP Regulations in not admitting the claim as the same was filed in a manner contrary to the CIRP Regulations. Submission was pressed that the public announcement for submission of claim had been made on 07.07.2023 and pegged from that date there was a delay of 245 days therefrom in filing the claim. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the Appellant had filed their claim on 15.03.2024 as against the date on which the resolution plan was voted by the CoC was 19.03.2024 and this formed a tenable reason for not admitting the claims in terms of CIRP Regulations 13(1B) & 13(1C). It was also pointed out that with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the creditors besides fostering the likelihood and possibility of unjust enrichment of other creditors. It was therefore contended that the impugned order was legally unsustainable which deserved to be set aside and that this was a fit case for issue of directions to the RP to admit the claim of the Appellant and place the same before the CoC by inserting an addendum to the resolution plan. 8. Rebutting the claims made by the Appellant, it was vehemently denied by the RP that the said claim of Rs. 10,30,528/- of the Appellant appeared in the Information Memorandum. It was contended that this plea was an entirely new argument being raised by the Appellant before this Tribunal. In any case, it is an admitted fact that the claim had been filed by the Appellant belatedly in contravention of the CIRP Regulations and hence the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order had rightly affirmed the decision of the RP not to admit the claim of the Appellant. Elaborating further, it was submitted by the Respondent- RP that the Appellant never filed her claim within the time stipulated by the public announcement nor within the extended time-line as provided by CIRP Regulation 13(1B) & 13(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filing of belated claim. 11. The relevant CIRP Regulations 13(1B) & 13(1C) are as reproduced below: "13(1B) In the event that claims are received after the period specified under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12 and up to seven days before the date of meeting of creditors for voting on the resolution plan or the initiation of liquidation, as the case may be, the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, shall verify all such claims and categorise them as acceptable or non- acceptable for collation. 13(1C) The interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, shall:- (a) intimate the creditor within seven days of categorisation thereof under sub-regulation (1B) and provide reasons where such claim has been categorised as non-acceptable for collation; and (b) put up the claims categorised as acceptable under sub-regulation (1B) and collated by him to:- (i) the committee in its next meeting for its recommendation for inclusion in the list of creditors and its treatment in the resolution plan, if any; and (ii) submit such claims before the Adjudicating Author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... distinguishing facts in both those cases from the present factual matrix. Quite apart from the fact that there was admittedly no dispute amongst the creditor and the RP in those two cases unlike the present one where the RP and the Appellant are not on the same page over the fact as to whether the liability had been reflected in the Information Memorandum or not, what is still more distinct that those two cases dealt with admission of belated claim before the coming into play of CIRP Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C) unlike in the present matter. CIRP Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C) were introduced with effect from 18.09.2023 while in the Rahul Jain case and Sonia Kapoor case, the belated claims were filed on 19.09.2022 and 24.06.2023. On the other hand, in the present case the claim was file on 15.03.3024 which was after the CIRP Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C) had come into effect. Hence, these two judicial precedents do not come to the aid of the Appellant. 15. We also do not find any infirmity in the impugned order upholding the non-admissibility of the claims by the RP since it is well-settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Essar Steel Vs Satish Kumar Gupta (2020....