Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (5) TMI 1535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.08.2023 by which an application filed by the Appellants bearing I.A No. 3764 of 2021 in I.B No. 1771/ND/2018 for issuance of a direction to the RP to admit their claim, has been rejected. 2. In brief, both the Appellants are husband and wife who have jointly applied for allotment of a unit in the project of Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. (CD) by the name of 'Victory Ace' situated at Plot No. GH-02, Sector 143, Noida. They were allotted unit B1-502 in the said project by the allotment letter dated 20.08.2013. The allotment letter was revised and by an allotment letter dated 29.08.2016, the unit of the Appellant was changed to A-2 1003 in the said project for total base .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o. 3764 of 2021 but the Tribunal dismissed their application vide the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Puneet Kaur Vs. K V Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on the ground that the claim submitted belatedly after the approval of the plan by the CoC cannot be entertained. 9. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in misreading the decision in the case of Puneet Kaur (Supra) because in the very same judgment in para 27, this court has held that if the claim of the homebuyers is reflected in the record of the CD in the IM then it ought to have been taken note of the said liability by the RP and should have appropriately dealt with in the resolution plan. 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that after the plan is approved by the CoC though pending before the AA for approval, the claim cannot be admitted. 13. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. 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 (Supra) 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 refle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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." 16. In the aforesaid case, however, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Court in para 18 that "if we analyse the aforesaid plea, it is quite obvious that respondent no. 1 did what could be done to procure the CD's records by even moving an application under Section 19 of the Code. That it was not fruitful is a consequence of the CD not making available the material. It is thus not even known whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e considered, particularly in the background that there is no acceptable material on record to suggest actual disbursement of Rs.50 lakhs to the Corporate Debtor and more so when the Appellant itself has filed Form - C and not CA raising its claim. There is also inconsistency in the description of the alleged unit being D2-601 or D2-2002 in the buyback agreement and allotment letter." 20. In our considered opinion, the decision in the case of Pooja Mehra (Supra) 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates