Case Note & Summary
The matter was a civil appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment and final order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1365 of 2023. The NCLAT had affirmed the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi rejecting the appellants' claim for possession of their residential apartment in the project of M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, the erstwhile Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor, an IREO Group company, was developing an integrated residential township named IREO Rise (Gardenia) in Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The appellants, residents of Bengaluru, booked an apartment in the project in 2010 and executed an Apartment Buyer's Agreement on 27.05.2011 for Apartment No. GBD-00-001 in Block D. The total sale consideration was Rs. 60,06,368, out of which the appellants paid Rs. 57,56,684, constituting almost the entirety of the contractual amount, with the balance agreed to be adjusted on account of delay in delivery of possession. Possession was due on or before 27.11.2013 but was not delivered. The appellants instituted Consumer Complaint No. 279 of 2018 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, seeking refund with interest and compensation. While the complaint was pending, the NCLT admitted an application under Section 7 of the IBC on 17.10.2018, commencing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. The State Commission disposed of the consumer complaint on 13.12.2018 with liberty to pursue claims in the CIRP. Pursuant to a public announcement dated 22.10.2018, the appellants submitted a claim for their plot in the IREO Hamlet project on 29.10.2018. For the apartment, they claimed that their authorised representative physically submitted Form-CA on 11.01.2019 at the project office in Mohali, but the respondents disputed this filing. On 31.01.2020, the Resolution Professional, citing incomplete records, invited creditors to resubmit claims. The appellants resubmitted their claim through email on 07.02.2020. The list of financial creditors published on 30.04.2020 reflected the appellants at Serial No. 636 with their claim admitted to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684. The Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicants was approved by the Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019 and by the NCLT on 01.06.2021. Clause 18.4 of the Resolution Plan governed homebuyer claims, with distinct provisions for timely and belated claims. The appellants approached the NCLT by filing I.A. No. 5579 of 2021, seeking directions for execution of conveyance deed and handover of possession. They contended that their claim was first filed on 11.01.2019 and resubmitted on 07.02.2020 pursuant to the Resolution Professional's email, and that their claim having been admitted in the list of financial creditors, they could not be treated as belated claimants under Clause 18.4(xi). They argued that they were entitled to possession under Clause 18.4(vi)(a) or at least to the admitted amount with interest, not to a reduced 50% refund. They relied on Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The respondents argued that no valid claim was filed within statutory timelines, that the physical filing at Mohali was denied, that the Form-CA itself calculated interest up to 07.02.2020 showing preparation on that date, and that by 07.02.2020 the Resolution Plan had already been approved by CoC, thus the claim fell under Clause 18.4(xi) entitling only 50% refund. The NCLT, by order dated 26.07.2023, rejected the application, holding that there was no proof of claim filed on 11.01.2019, and that the claim was filed only on 07.02.2020 after CoC approval. The NCLT held that the claim had to be dealt with strictly under Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan, entitling the appellants only to refund of 50% of the principal sum. The NCLAT affirmed this order. The extracted text does not include the Supreme Court's final analysis, operative direction, or conclusion, so the ultimate outcome of the Civil Appeal could not be determined from the provided material.
Headnote
A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Initiation and Claim Admission - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 - CIRP commenced against M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited on 17.10.2018; public announcement dated 22.10.2018 called for claims; appellants' apartment claim was reflected at Serial No. 636 in list of financial creditors dated 30.04.2020 with admitted amount Rs. 57,56,684/-. The dispute concerned whether the claim was filed timely on 11.01.2019 at project office or belatedly on 07.02.2020 (Paras 5-7). B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Resolution Plan - Classification of Homebuyer Claims - Clause 18.4(vi)(a) and Clause 18.4(xi) of Approved Resolution Plan - The core issue was whether the appellants were timely claimants entitled to possession or an equivalent unit under Clause 18.4(vi)(a), or belated claimants entitled only to 50% refund under Clause 18.4(xi). The NCLT held that no proof existed for 11.01.2019 filing and that the claim filed on 07.02.2020 post-dated CoC approval on 23.08.2019, thus fell under Clause 18.4(xi); NCLAT affirmed this finding (Paras 10-15, 16-20, 21-25). C) Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Appellate Jurisdiction - Appeal Under Section 62 IBC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 62 - Appeal to Supreme Court against NCLAT order dated 10.01.2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1365 of 2023; the appeal challenged rejection of possession claim and mechanical application of belated claim clause despite admission of claim in creditor list (Paras 1, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants' claim for possession of residential apartment was timely filed and duly admitted; whether the claim should be treated under Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the approved Resolution Plan entitling possession or under Clause 18.4(xi) entitling only 50% refund; and whether the NCLAT erred in affirming the NCLT's rejection of the possession claim.
Final Decision
Not mentioned - the extracted text does not include the Supreme Court's operative order; the NCLT and NCLAT had rejected the appellants' application, holding that the claim was filed on 07.02.2020 after CoC approval and governed by Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan.
Law Points
- Homebuyers as financial creditors under IBC
- statutory timelines for claim submission
- belated claims under resolution plan
- Clause 18.4(vi)(a) vs Clause 18.4(xi)
- admission of claim in list of financial creditors
- NCLT and NCLAT jurisdiction under IBC
