Summary
Homebuyers who had paid almost the entire consideration for an apartment, and whose claim in the corporate debtor's CIRP was verified by the Resolution Professional and entered in the published list of financial creditors before the NCLT approved the resolution plan, could not be treated as belated or unverified claimants entitled only to a 50% refund under the residuary clause of the plan. The Supreme Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders and directed execution of the conveyance deed and handover of possession within two months.
Issues
- Whether allottees whose claim was resubmitted on 07.02.2020, verified by the Resolution Professional and incorporated in the list of financial creditors published on 30.04.2020 are belated claimants under Clause 18.4(xi) of the approved resolution plan (50% refund), or verified claimants entitled to possession under Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a).
- Whether the disputed physical filing of the claim at the project office on 11.01.2019 needed to be resolved to decide the appeal.
- Whether the NCLAT could disregard the Resolution Professional's statutory act of publishing the list of financial creditors and treat the appellants as if no claim had been filed.
Provisions considered
- Section 62, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016The appeal to the Supreme Court against the NCLAT's order affirming rejection of the homebuyers' application was brought under this provision. (¶ 1)
- Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016CIRP against the corporate debtor was commenced on admission of a Section 7 application on 17.10.2018, after which the State Consumer Commission relegated the appellants to the CIRP. (¶ 5)
Held
- Once a homebuyer's claim has been resubmitted, verified by the Resolution Professional and incorporated in the published list of financial creditors, it acquires full legal recognition within the CIRP; the publication of that list is an act in discharge of a statutory duty and cannot be reduced to a meaningless formality or brushed aside by treating the allottee as having filed no claim. (¶¶ 32, 33)
- The disputed assertion of an earlier physical filing on 11.01.2019 did not need to be resolved, because the admitted resubmission on 07.02.2020 and its verification and inclusion in the list dated 30.04.2020 were sufficient to decide the appeal. (¶¶ 31, 32)
- Clause 18.4 of the resolution plan distinguishes categories of allottees: Clause 18.4(ii) honours in full claims filed and admitted with an allotment letter, Clause 18.4(vi)(a) provides for handover or conveyance to existing allottees, while Clause 18.4(xi) is residuary and applies only where no claim was filed, or a filed claim was not verified, or a verified claim was not communicated to the resolution applicant. Allottees whose claim was filed, verified and informed to the successful resolution applicant fall under Clause 18.4(ii) read with 18.4(vi)(a), not 18.4(xi). (¶¶ 34, 35, 36)
- Directing possession to such allottees is not entertaining a fresh claim beyond the resolution plan; confining an admitted claim verified before the Adjudicating Authority's approval to the reduced benefit of the residuary clause misapplies the plan rather than preserving its binding effect, and obliterating the plan's distinction between verified and unverified claims would render its scheme otiose. (¶ 37)
- Relegating bona fide allottees who paid substantial consideration years in advance to the status of mere refund claimants runs contrary to the object of the legislative framework and would inflict unfair prejudice. (¶¶ 37, 38)
Result
Appeal allowed; NCLAT judgment dated 10.01.2025 and NCLT order dated 26.07.2023 set aside; respondents directed to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession of Apartment No. GBD-00-001, Block D, IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali within two months; I.A. No. 151506 of 2025 rejected; pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs.