Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 7, 30, 31, 62 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Homebuyers’ claims — Distinction between verified and belated claims — Resolution Plan, cl. 18.4(ii), cl. 18.4(vi)(a) and cl. 18.4(xi):
Where homebuyers had (i) paid almost entire consideration for allotted apartment, (ii) submitted Form-CA claim, which though disputed as initially belated, was later resubmitted, duly verified and admitted by Resolution Professional (RP), and (iii) inclusion of such claim was reflected in list of financial creditors published prior to plan approval — Held, such claim cannot be treated as “belated” under cl. 18.4(xi) (entitling only 50% refund), but squarely falls under cl. 18.4(ii) r/w cl. 18.4(vi)(a), entitling homebuyers to possession/conveyance — Once RP verified and admitted claim, and it was notified in creditors’ list, it attained full legal recognition — Non-consideration of such admitted claims would lead to inequitable resolution and undermine legislative intent of protecting homebuyers under IBC — Orders of NCLT and NCLAT treating appellants as belated claimants and restricting them to refund set aside — Directions issued to Successful Resolution Applicant to execute conveyance deed and hand over possession of apartment within two months.
Consumer Protection — Real Estate — Delay in possession — Effect of CIRP under IBC:
Consumer complaint withdrawn due to admission of CIRP — Homebuyers permitted to pursue claim in insolvency proceedings — Once claim admitted, relief of possession can be granted notwithstanding pendency of CIRP.
Held: Bona fide allottees who have substantially paid consideration and whose claims are admitted by RP before approval of resolution plan cannot be relegated to residual category of refund claimants — To deny possession despite admitted claim is inequitable and contrary to object of IBC.
Result:
Appeal allowed — NCLT and NCLAT orders set aside — Conveyance deed and possession directed to be delivered within two months2025 INSC 1086
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 1 of 18
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4296 OF 2025
AMIT NEHRA & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PAWAN KUMAR GARG & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. This Civil Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “IBC”) is filed against the judgment
and final order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (the “NCLAT”) in
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1365 of 2023, whereby
the NCLAT affirmed the decision of the National Company Law
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 2 of 18
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the “NCLT”) rejecting the
Appellants claim for possession of their residential apartment in
the real estate project of M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited (the
“Corporate Debtor”).
2. The erstwhile Corporate Debtor, M/s Puma Realtors
Private Limited, an IREO Group company, undertook
development of integrated residential townships in Punjab,
including the project IREO Rise (Gardenia) situated in Sector 99,
SAS Nagar, Mohali. The project, conceived as a modern
residential complex, envisaged delivery of multiple residential
blocks with allied amenities and facilities.
3. The Appellants both residents of Bengaluru, booked an
apartment in the said project in the year 2010. On 27.05.2011,
they executed an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement with the
Corporate Debtor for purchase of Apartment No. GBD-00-001 in
Block D. Against the total sale consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-,
the Appellants paid Rs. 57,56,684/-, constituting almost the
entirety of the contractual amount, the balance being agreed to be
adjusted on account of delay in delivery of possession.
4. As per the buyer’s agreement, possession was to be handed
over on or before 27.11.2013. The Corporate Debtor, however,
failed to deliver possession within the agreed period, or
thereafter. Left with no option, the Appellants instituted
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 3 of 18
Consumer Complaint No. 279 of 2018 before the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, inter alia seeking
refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation.
5. While the aforesaid proceedings were pending, on
17.10.2018, the NCLT admitted an application under Section 7
of the IBC bearing CP(IB) No. 934 (PB) of 2018 against the
Corporate Debtor, thereby, commencing the Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process (the “CIRP”) in respect of M/s
Puma Realtors Private Limited. Considering the foregoing, the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh,
vide order dated 13.12.2018, disposed of the complaint with
liberty reserved to the Appellants to pursue their claim before the
competent authority in the CIRP proceedings.
6. Pursuant thereto, the Interim Resolution Professional
issued a public announcement on 22.10.2018 calling upon all
creditors, including homebuyers, to submit their claims in the
prescribed form. The Appellants, being allottee of both a plot in
the “IREO Hamlet” project and the present apartment in “IREO
Rise (Gardenia),” initially submitted their claim qua the plot on
29.10.2018. In so far as the apartment is concerned, the
Appellants authorised representative, Col. K.K. Verma (father of
Appellant No. 2), physically submitted Form-CA together with
supporting documents on 11.01.2019 at the project office of the
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 4 of 18
Corporate Debtor at Mohali. The Respondent(s), however,
dispute this filing, asserting that no such physical claim was
received at the notified address of the Resolution Professional.
7. Be that as it may, on 31.01.2020, the Resolution
Professional, citing incomplete records of the Corporate Debtor,
addressed an email inviting creditors to resubmit claims. Acting
thereupon, the Appellants resubmitted their claim through email
on 07.02.2020. Thereafter, on 30.04.2020, the Resolution
Professional published the list of financial creditors, wherein the
Appellants name was reflected at Serial No. 636, with their claim
duly admitted to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684/-.
8. The Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No(s).
2 and 3/Successful Resolution Applicant (“One City
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.” and “APM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”) was
approved by the Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019 and
subsequently approved by the NCLT vide order dated
01.06.2021. As per the Resolution Plan, the treatment of
homebuyer claims was governed by Clause 18.4, with distinct
provisions for timely claims and belated claims.
9. Despite the admitted inclusion of the Appellants claim in
the list of financial creditors, possession of the allotted apartment
was not delivered. Constrained thereby, the Appellants
approached the Adjudicating Authority seeking directions to the
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 5 of 18
Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant
for execution of the conveyance deed and handover of
possession, which was rejected. Their appeal before the NCLAT
met with the same fate and was dismissed, resulting in the
impugned order now under challenge before us.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the
entire approach of the Adjudicating Authority and the NCLAT is
vitiated by a fundamental misappreciation of facts and
misapplication of the relevant clauses of the approved Resolution
Plan. It is urged that the Appellants are bona fide homebuyers,
who, having paid a sum of Rs. 57,56,684/- out of the total
consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-, have acquired a vested right in
the apartment allotted to them in IREO Rise (Gardenia).
11. It is emphasized that the Appellants claim was first
submitted through their authorized representative on 11.01.2019,
immediately upon withdrawal of their consumer complaint, and
in any event, was resubmitted pursuant to email of the Resolution
Professional inviting homebuyers/financial creditors to resubmit
claims, on 07.02.2020. The said claim stood verified and
admitted, as is borne out by the list of financial creditors
published on 30.04.2020, where the Appellants appear at Serial
No. 636 whereby their claim stood admitted to the extent of
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 6 of 18
Rs. 57,56,684/-. Once their claim was duly verified and admitted,
the Appellants submit that there remained no basis for treating
them under Clause 18.4(xi) of the plan, which governs cases of
unverified or uninformed claims.
12. Learned Counsel submits that Clause 18.4(xi) applies only
in cases where the allottee has not filed a claim with the
Resolution Professional, or having filed, it has not been verified,
or having been verified, it has not been informed to the
Resolution Applicant. By contrast, Clause 18.4(vi)(a) governs
cases of allottees whose claims stand verified and admitted. The
Appellants, therefore, are entitled to delivery of possession of the
apartment or an equivalent alternative unit, and not to a reduced
refund of 50% of the total consideration.
13. It is further urged that the Resolution Professional himself
acknowledged the difficulty of incomplete records by way of the
email dated 31.01.2020, and invited resubmission of claims.
Pursuant thereto, the Appellants resubmitted their Form-CA,
which stood accepted. Once the Resolution Professional himself
had adopted such course, the Respondent(s) cannot now be heard
to allege that the Appellants claim is ‘belated’.
14. Learned Counsel relies upon Puneet Kaur v. K.V.
Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 245 to
contend that non-consideration of claims which are reflected in
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 7 of 18
the record leads to inequitable and unfair resolution. It would
now be unfair to relegate homebuyer(s) claims to the residual or
discretionary category of refund.
15. Learned Counsel further submits that the NCLAT, in
mechanically treating the Appellants as belated claimants,
disregarded their verified inclusion in the list of creditors and
thereby inflicted grave injustice by depriving bona-fide
homebuyers of their rightful allotment despite substantial amount
having been paid. Relegating the Appellants to a reduced refund,
despite the claim being admitted by Resolution Professional,
undermines both the resolution plan and the scheme of the code.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT(S)
16. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Resolution
Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant
(Respondent No(s). 2 and 3) submits that the Appellants failed to
file any valid claim in respect of their apartment within the
statutory timelines prescribed by the Code and the public
announcement dated 22.10.2018. The Interim Resolution
Professional categorically stipulated in the aforesaid public
announcement, that claims be submitted either by electronic
means or at the notified address in New Delhi. The alleged
physical filing at the Mohali project office on 11.01.2019 is
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 8 of 18
denied, on the ground that neither the Resolution Professional nor
his staff operated from the Mohali address.
17. Learned Counsel assert that the Form-CA relied upon by
the Appellants itself calculates interest upto 07.02.2020,
demonstrating preparation and filing only on that date. It is urged
that this is clear evidence that the form was in fact prepared and
filed only on that date, and any plea of an earlier submission is
an afterthought to overcome limitation.
18. It is further urged that by the time the Appellants filed their
claim on 07.02.2020, the Resolution Plan had already been
approved by the Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019.
Consequently, the Appellants claim fell squarely within the ambit
of Clause 18.4(xi) and 18.4(xix) of the Resolution Plan, entitling
them only to a refund of 50% of the principal sum.
19. It is also contended that the Appellants had knowledge of
the public announcement and had in fact filed a claim for their
plot in the IREO Hamlet project on 29.10.2018. Having been
aware of the process, they deliberately chose not to file a claim
for the apartment until February 2020. Having slept over their
rights, the Appellants cannot now seek parity with those allottees
who filed their claims within time.
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 9 of 18
20. The Respondent(s), therefore, submit that the findings of
the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal are
unexceptionable, having correctly applied Clause 18.4(xi) of the
Resolution Plan to the facts at hand. It is urged that the present
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
FINDINGS OF THE NCLT
21. The Appellants, aggrieved by the failure to deliver
possession of their allotted apartment despite substantial
consideration being paid, filed an application before the NCLT
being I.A. No. 5579 of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 934(PB)/2018,
seeking, inter alia, directions to the Resolution Professional and
the Successful Resolution Applicants to execute the conveyance
deed in their favour and to hand over physical possession of the
apartment GBD-00-001 (Block D), IREO Rise (Gardenia),
Mohali.
22. Primarily, the Appellants contended that they had duly
submitted their claim in Form-CA on 11.01.2019 at the Mohali
project office, and in any event resubmitted it on 07.02.2020
pursuant to the Resolution Professional’s email dated 31.01.2020
inviting homebuyers who had not filed their claim, to submit their
claim within six months from the date of approval of the
Resolution Plan by NCLT. It was contended by the Appellants
that their claim stood verified and admitted by the Resolution
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 10 of 18
Professional, and was accordingly reflected in the list of financial
creditors published on 30.04.2020. Hence, they could not be
relegated to the restrictive treatment as per clause 18.4(xi) of the
Resolution Plan, and therefore, the Appellants are entitled either
the aforesaid apartment or the amount reflecting in the list of
creditors along with interest till the date of realization.
23. The Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution
Applicant, however, opposed the application, denying that any
claim had been filed on 11.01.2019, and asserting that the only
claim filed by the Appellants was on 07.02.2020, well after the
Committee of Creditors had approved the Resolution Plan on
23.08.2019. It was argued that the Appellants claim was therefore
squarely covered by Clause 18.4(xi), which provided for refund
of only 50% of the principal amount paid.
24. Vide order dated 26.07.2023, the Adjudicating Authority
rejected the application. It recorded that there was no proof to
substantiate the assertion of a claim having been filed on
11.01.2019 and held that the claim was in fact filed only on
07.02.2020, subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan by the
Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019. Noting that the
Resolution Plan had been duly approved and attained finality, the
NCLT held that the Appellants claim was to be dealt with strictly
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 11 of 18
in accordance with Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan,
entitling them only to refund of 50% of the principal sum.
FINDINGS OF THE NCLAT
25. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants preferred Company
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1365 of 2023 before the NCLAT
challenging the order of the NCLT. They reiterated that their
claim had been submitted on 11.01.2019 and in any event
resubmitted on 07.02.2020 pursuant to the Resolution
Professional’s communication dated 31.01.2020 inviting
homebuyers who had not filed their claim, to submit their claims
within six months from the date of approval of the Resolution
Plan by NCLT. Relying on the list of creditors dated 30.04.2020,
wherein their claim was duly admitted to the extent of
Rs. 57,56,684/- the Appellants contended that they could not be
placed under Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan. NCLAT,
however, did not find merit with these submissions.
26. Vide judgment dated 10.01.2025, the NCLAT dismissed
the appeal. It observed that the Appellants had admittedly not
filed their claim within the period stipulated in the public
announcement. It further noted that the plea of physical filing at
the Mohali office on 11.01.2019 was unsupported by any
contemporaneous record, and that in terms of the public
announcement, claims were to be submitted only through
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 12 of 18
electronic means or at the New Delhi address of the Resolution
Professional.
27. On the aforesaid premise, the NCLAT held that the claim
of the Appellants could be recognised only from 07.02.2020,
when it was resubmitted by e-mail. Since by that date the
Resolution Plan had already been approved by the Committee of
Creditors on 23.08.2019, the Appellants case, according to the
NCLAT, fell within the ambit of Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution
Plan. As per the said clause, such belated claims were to be dealt
with at the discretion of the Resolution Applicant, and only to the
extent of 50% refund of the principal amount paid. The NCLAT
thus concluded that the Appellants were not entitled to possession
of the apartment, but only to refund of 50% of their deposit, i.e.,
Rs. 28,78,342/-, payable in Quarter 13, as envisaged in the
approved Resolution Plan.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING
28. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced at the bar and perused the material placed
on record. The central question which falls for our determination
is whether the Appellants, being allottees of an apartment in the
project IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali developed by the
erstwhile Corporate Debtor M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and
having admittedly paid a sum of Rs. 57,56,684/- out of the total
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 13 of 18
consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-, are to be treated as belated
claimants entitled only to refund of 50% of their principal deposit
under Clause 18.4(xi), or whether, their claim having been duly
verified and incorporated in the list of creditors, they are entitled
to possession in terms of Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution
Plan.
29. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the Appellants are
bona fide homebuyers, having booked an apartment with the
Corporate Debtor as far back as 2010, and having executed a
Buyer’s Agreement on 27.05.2011. A sum of Rs. 57,56,684/-,
constituting almost entirety of the sale consideration, stands paid.
The balance was contractually adjustable against penalty for
delay in handing over possession.
30. The case of the Appellants rests on two principal pillar(s):
first, that their claim was initially submitted on 11.01.2019 in
physical form at the project office at Mohali; and second, that
pursuant to the Resolution Professional’s email dated 31.01.2020
inviting homebuyers who had not filed their claim, to do so, they
resubmitted their Form-CA on 07.02.2020 by way of an e-mail.
Their claim was thereafter duly verified, admitted and
incorporated in the list of financial creditors published on
30.04.2020 at Serial No. 636.
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 14 of 18
31. The Respondent(s) have strenuously disputed the alleged
filing of 11.01.2019, contending that no such claim was received
at the notified address, and further that the Form-CA itself
computes interest up to 07.02.2020. While this factual dispute
has occupied considerable attention before the fora below, it
appears to us that resolution of the present appeal does not hinge
upon the disputed assertion of 11.01.2019.
32. The admitted and undisputed position remains that the
Appellants claim was resubmitted on 07.02.2020; that it was duly
verified by the Resolution Professional; and that it was
incorporated in the published list of creditors dated 30.04.2020.
Once such verification and incorporation occurred, the claim
acquired full legal recognition within the CIRP process.
33. We are unable to countenance the approach of the NCLAT
in brushing aside this admitted position, and in treating the
Appellants as if they had not filed any claim at all. The
publication of the list of financial creditors is an act in discharge
of a statutory duty by the Resolution Professional. It cannot be
reduced to a meaningless formality. Learned Counsel for the
Appellants has rightly placed reliance on Puneet Kaur v. K.V.
Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 245,
wherein it was observed as follows:
“…...However, we are of the view that the claim of those
homebuyers, who could not file their claims, but whose
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 15 of 18
claims were reflected in the record of the corporate
debtor, ought to have been included in the information
memorandum and resolution applicant, ought to have
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. To mitigate the
hardship of the appellant, we thus, are of the view that
ends of justice would be met, if direction is issued to the
resolution professional to submit the details of
homebuyers, whose details are reflected in the records
of the corporate debtor including their claims, 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
committee of creditors for consideration…..”
In this backdrop, the Resolution Professional rightly
admitted the claim of the Appellants to the extent of
Rs. 57,56,684/- and reflected it at Serial No. 636 in the list of
financial creditors.
34. It is next necessary to examine the structure of Clause 18.4
of the Resolution Plan, which prescribes distinct treatments for
different categories of allottees. Clause 18.4(ii) stipulates that
where the claim has been filed and admitted by the Resolution
Professional, and the allotment letter issued, the claim shall be
honored in full. Clause 18.4(vi)(a) sets out the payment plan for
existing allottees, providing for handover of units or execution of
conveyance. By contrast, Clause 18.4(xi) is residuary in nature,
applying where no claim has been filed, or if filed, not verified
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 16 of 18
by the Resolution Professional, or if verified, not communicated
to the Resolution Applicant; such allottees are extended only a
reduced benefit of refund of 50% of the principal amount
deposited. Clause 18.4(xix) clarifies that belated claims filed
between submission of the plan and its approval by the
Adjudicating Authority are to be dealt with ‘in the manner
elucidated above and relevant to their case’.
35. The Appellants case, on admitted facts, does not fall within
Clause 18.4(xi). Their claim was filed, verified, and informed to
the Successful Resolution Applicant, as is evidenced by the entry
at Serial No. 636 in the list of creditors dated 30.04.2020,
admitting their claim to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684/. Once so
admitted, their case squarely falls within Clause 18.4(ii) read
with Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan.
36. The Respondent(s) reliance on Clause 18.4(xi) is
misconceived. That clause is intended to apply only to allotees
who had defaulted in filing or pursuing their claims. The
Appellants cannot be so characterised, having paid nearly the
entire consideration, submitted their claim, and had it duly
verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional.
37. What is critical to note is that this is not a case of
entertaining a fresh claim beyond the Resolution Plan. It
concerns an allottee whose claim was verified and admitted by
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 17 of 18
the Resolution Professional and reflected in the list of financial
creditors well before approval of the Plan by the Adjudicating
Authority. To disregard such an admitted claim and confine the
Appellants to the limited benefit under Clause 18.4(xi) is not to
preserve the binding effect of the plan but to misapply it. Clause
18.4 itself draws a clear distinction between verified claims and
belated or unverified claims; to obliterate that distinction would
render the scheme otiose. Relegating bona fide allottees, who
have paid substantial consideration years in advance, to the status
of mere refund claimants runs contrary to the very object of the
legislative framework.
38. The facts of the present case highlight the plight of
individual homebuyers, who invest their life savings in the hope
of securing a roof over their heads. The Appellants had paid
nearly the entire sale consideration as far back as 2011. To deny
them possession today, despite their claim having been duly
verified and admitted, would inflict unfair and unwarranted
prejudice.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
39. In light of the foregoing analysis and reasoning, the appeal
merits acceptance. The judgment of the NCLAT dated
10.01.2025 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
1365 of 2023, as well as the order of the NCLT dated 26.07.2023
C. A. No. 4296 of 2025 Page 18 of 18
passed in I.A. No. 5579 of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 934(PB)/2018,
are hereby set aside.
40. Respondent(s) shall execute the Conveyance Deed and
hand over possession of Apartment No. GBD-00-001, Block D,
IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali to the Appellants within a period
of two months from today.
41. Notedly, Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2023 titled “Paramjeet
Kaur & Anr. v. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”, was dismissed
by this Court on 25.03.2025. Accordingly, I.A. No. 151506 of
2025 in Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2025 is rejected.
42. The relief(s) sought by the Appellants in the present appeal
are thus granted in the terms aforesaid. The appeal stands
allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. No
order as to costs.
……………………………………J.
[SANJAY KUMAR]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
September 09, 2025.
