9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1030 - AT - IBCPrayer to admit claim as a Financial Creditor in a class and to consider his case at par with the other unit buyers/claimants while implementing the Resolution Plan has been rejected primarily on the ground that the application has been filed belatedly - non-commercial entity like a homebuyer - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the liability of the CD towards the Appellant is clearly reflected in the IM. The appellant has also filed the claim belatedly and the CoC has approved the plan but the plan has not been approved by the Adjudicating Authority so far as it is pending for its consideration. The appellant has basically relied upon a decision in the case of Puneet Kaur in which this court has held that in the preset 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 IM. In the case of Puneet Kaur this Court has held that however the claim of those homebuyers who could not file their claims but whose claims were reflected in the record of the CD ought to have been included in the IM and resolution applicant ought to have been taken note of the said labilities and should have appropriately dealt with them in the resolution plan. Non-consideration of such claims which are reflected from the record leads to inequitable and unfair resolution as is seen in the present case. To mitigate the hardship of the Appellant the ends of justice would be met if direction is issued to resolution professional to submit the details of homebuyers whose details are reflected in the records of the CD including their claims to the Resolution applicant on the basis of which resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum to the resolution plan which may be placed before the CoC for consideration. The argument of the Respondent that since the CoC has already approved the plan and the claim has been filed after the approval of the plan the decision in the case of M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. 2023 (9) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT would come in the way of the Appellant because in that case it has been held that the mere fact that the AA 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. Further since the claim was filed after delay of 287 days and creditor feigned ignorance about the CIRP about which the Hon ble court has held that the Appellant being a commercial entity and had been litigating against the CD therefore it ought to have been vigilant enough to find out whether the CD was undergoing CIRP and once a public announcement of the CIRP has been made through newspapers it would constitute deemed knowledge on the Appellant and the plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncement is not the one which should be available to a commercial entity - However the present case pertains to the non-commercial entity like a homebuyer. The decision in the case of Pooja Mehra 2024 (4) TMI 1064 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI is not applicable because in that case it was not even proved that the Appellant had disbursed the amount in question to the CD whereas in the present there is no dispute that the Appellant had disbursed the amount after taking loan from the Bank and the said factum is part of the IM. The controversy in hand is covered by the case of Puneet Kaur and therefore while allowing the present appeal and setting aside the impugned order we direct the RP to submit the detail of the appellant reflected in the record of the CD including their claim to the resolution applicant on the basis of which the resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum to the resolution plan which may be placed before the CoC for consideration. Conclusion - i) Claims not supported by proof of payment or inconsistent documentation may be rejected but undisputed claims reflected in the IM must be considered. ii) The AA s approval of the resolution plan must take into account any addendum and minutes of the CoC reflecting such claims. Application disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Admissibility of belated claims filed after CoC approval of the resolution plan Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) mandates that claims must be submitted within the prescribed timelines. The Supreme Court in M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr. held that claims filed after the CoC's approval of the resolution plan cannot be entertained, emphasizing that the CIRP should not become an endless process by reopening finalized issues. This principle was reiterated by this Tribunal in Puneet Kaur vs. K V Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., where claims filed post-approval were generally disallowed. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the general rule that claims filed after CoC approval are barred. However, it distinguished the present case on facts, noting that the resolution plan had not yet been approved by the Adjudicating Authority (AA), and the liability towards the appellant was clearly reflected in the IM. The Tribunal emphasized that the plan's approval by CoC alone does not preclude consideration of legitimate claims reflected in the CD's records, especially where the plan has not been sanctioned by the AA. Key evidence and findings: The appellant's liability was recorded in the IM, and the appellant had paid a substantial amount towards the flat, supported by bank loan documentation. The claim was filed 980 days after the last date of submission and 492 days after CoC approval, yet the IM contained the appellant's details. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle from Puneet Kaur that non-consideration of claims reflected in the CD's records leads to inequitable and unfair resolutions. It reasoned that since the appellant's claim was reflected in the IM, the RP was obligated to submit these details to the RA for inclusion in the resolution plan. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent relied heavily on M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. to argue that the claim was barred due to delay and CoC approval. The Tribunal distinguished that case on the ground that there the RP could not access the CD's records despite efforts, whereas here the appellant's claim was clearly documented in the IM. The respondent also cited a recent decision involving the same CD (Pooja Mehra vs. Nilesh Sharma & Ors.) where claims were denied due to lack of proof of payment. The Tribunal found that decision inapplicable as the appellant here had undisputed proof of payment. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim, though belated, must be considered since it was reflected in the IM and the plan had not yet been approved by the AA. The RP must submit the appellant's details to the RA for preparation of an addendum to the resolution plan for CoC consideration. Issue 2: Obligation of the Resolution Professional and Resolution Applicant regarding claims reflected in the Information Memorandum Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal relied on Puneet Kaur where it was held that the RP must provide the RA with details of homebuyers whose claims are reflected in the CD's records, enabling the RA to prepare a comprehensive resolution plan inclusive of such claims. Failure to do so leads to unfair and inequitable resolutions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that the IM must include all liabilities of the CD, including those of homebuyers who did not file claims in time. The RP's duty is to ensure these are communicated to the RA, who must incorporate them in the resolution plan or its addendum for CoC approval. Key evidence and findings: The appellant's liability and payment details were part of the IM, and the appellant's name appeared in the list of unit holders who had not filed claims. The RP had not submitted these details to the RA initially, resulting in exclusion of the appellant's claim from the plan. Application of law to facts: Applying the principle from Puneet Kaur, the Tribunal directed the RP to submit the appellant's details to the RA for preparation of an addendum to the resolution plan. This addendum is to be placed before the CoC for consideration and subsequent approval by the AA. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that reopening claims after CoC approval would disrupt the CIRP process and encourage others to file belated claims. The Tribunal acknowledged this concern but balanced it against the need for fairness and equity, particularly for non-commercial homebuyers whose claims were documented in the CD's records. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the RP must comply with this duty to ensure fair treatment of all creditors whose claims are reflected in the IM, even if filed belatedly. Issue 3: Distinction between commercial entities and homebuyers regarding knowledge of CIRP and delay in filing claims Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court in M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. noted that commercial entities engaged in litigation against the CD are expected to be vigilant and aware of CIRP proceedings, and ignorance of public announcements does not excuse delay. However, homebuyers, being non-commercial entities, may not have the same level of awareness or sophistication. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished the appellant's position as a homebuyer (non-commercial entity) from commercial creditors. It recognized that homebuyers might lack the expertise or vigilance to track CIRP developments and thus merit equitable consideration despite delay. Key evidence and findings: The appellant had paid a substantial amount for the flat and was not a commercial entity. There was no evidence of willful ignorance or negligence but rather a genuine delay in filing the claim. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied a nuanced approach, holding that homebuyers deserve a more lenient treatment regarding delay in filing claims, especially when their claims are reflected in the CD's records and the CIRP is pending final approval by the AA. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent urged strict adherence to timelines to prevent reopening of the CIRP. The Tribunal acknowledged this but emphasized fairness to homebuyers who are vulnerable creditors. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's status as a homebuyer justifies consideration of the belated claim, balancing procedural finality with equitable treatment. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The claim of those homebuyers, who could not file their claims, but whose claims were reflected in the record of the Corporate Debtor, ought to have been included in the Information Memorandum and the resolution applicant ought to have been taken note of the said liabilities and should have appropriately dealt with them in the resolution plan. Non-consideration of such claims, which are reflected from the record, leads to inequitable and unfair resolution as is seen in the present case." "If we analyse the aforesaid plea, it is quite obvious that Respondent no. 1 did what could be done to procure the Corporate Debtor's records by even moving an application under Section 19 of the IBC. That it was not fruitful is a consequence of the Corporate Debtor not making available the material. It is thus not even known whether there was a reflection in the records on this aspect or not." "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." Final determinations on each issue:
|
