AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain:
16.12.2022 This order shall dispose of five appeals bearing CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 366 of 2022, 367 of 2022, 389 of 2022, 1046 of 2021 & 334 of 2022, as the issues involved in all these appeals are common.
In brief, Sunil Handa & Ors. (Financial Creditors) filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (In short ‘Code’) against Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), which was admitted on 20.08.2019 and Ravindra Kumar Mintri was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and ultimately Resolution Professional (RP). He invited the claims on 25.08.2019. The last date for the submission of claim was 03.09.2019. The last version of Information Memorandum (IM) was prepared on 15.01.2020. The resolution plan was submitted by the consortium called One Group on 21.01.2020 and after certain modification the final plan was submitted on 04.03.2020 which was approved on the same date by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
We have been told that one SP Probuild LLP filed its claim on 16.06.2020 after approval of resolution plan by CoC on 04.03.2020. The said claim was rejected by the RP on 19.04.2021. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application of SP Probuild LLP and it met the same fate before the Appellate Tribunal. However, still an appeal was filed by SP Probuild LLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. Civil Appeal No. 7907 of 2021 which too met the same fate.
In the present five appeals, there is one home buyer in each appeal who is dissatisfied with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on different dates on their respective applications by which they had challenged the order of the RP who had rejected their claim. The list of the Appellants,the date of filing of the claim before the RP, order of rejection of the RP, the days of delay in filing the application before the RP, I.A. filed before the Adjudicating Authority, decided by the Adjudicating Authority is reproduced hereinbelow by way of a chart:
| Case No. | Appellant | Date of filing | Date of | Delay in | I.A. No. | Decided On |
| rejection | days | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 366 of 2022 | ‘Mr. Dhiraj Sinha & Ms. Namrata Sinha’ | 12.10.2020 | 13.10.2020 | 405 | 4524 of 2020 | 25.08.2021 |
| CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 367 of 2022 | Mr. Varun Chhabra & Ms. Manisha Verma | 12.10.2021 | 21.10.2021 | 770 | 534 of 2022 | 04.02.2022 |
| CA (AT) (Ins) No. 389 of 2022 | Mr. Manoj Roy | 26.03.2021 | 31.03.2021 | 571 | 3706 of 2021 | 21.09.2021 |
| CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 1046 of 2021 | Mr. Vijay Chhabra & Mr. Shiv Chhabra | 14.09.2020 | 19.09.2020 | 379 | 4248 of 2021 | 25.08.2021 |
| CA (AT) (Ins) No. 334 of 2022 | Mr. Nitin Verma & Ms. Rekha Sirohi Verma | 30.11.2021 | 30.11.2021 | 814 | 679 of 2022 | 11.02.2022 |
These facts are not disputed by the parties, however, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has committed an error in dismissing the applications, relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mukul Kumar Vs. M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1050 of 2020, to hold that claims lodged with the RP post approval of the resolution plan, are not maintainable.
It is submitted that in the case of Puneet Kaur Vs. K. V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 390 of 2022, it has been held that the Resolution Applicant shall prepare an addendum on the basis of information submitted by the RP and place the same before the CoC within a period of one month. It is also argued by Counsel for the Appellant that in SP Probuild LLP case it was not a case of individual homebuyers but it was the case of builder who was the owner of 41 flats.
On the other hand, Counsel for Respondents has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7907 of 2021 decided on 12.01.2022 to contend that in that case the Corporate Debtor was the same and similar arguments were raised that since the claim has been rejected only by the CoC and not by the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the same can be looked into was rejected. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:
“The Committee of Creditors has approved the Resolution Plan on 4 th March, 2020 whereas the appellant filed a claim on 16th June, 2020 which was rejected by the Resolution Professional on 19th April, 2021. The adjudicating authority dismissed the application filed by the appellant which was upheld by the appellate tribunal. Aggrieved by which this appeal has been filed. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submitted that as per Section 31 of the IPC, the Resolution Plan becomes final only after it is approved by the adjudicating authority. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Reported in (2021) 9 SCC 657. After examining the said judgment and after hearing Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
The appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. However, the appellant is at liberty to pursue any other remedy, as available to him under the law.”
In so far as, the decision in the case of Puneet Kaur (Supra) is concerned, it is submitted that the facts of the said case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the said case, only direction was given that it shall be considered by the CoC and the decision of the CoC shall be placed before the Adjudicating Authority while considering the resolution plan.
We have heard counsel for the parties and after perusal of records are of the considered opinion that in so far as these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of SP Probuild LLP (Supra) in which similar arguments were raised and rejected.
In view thereof, there is hardly any merit in the present appeals for the purpose of interference and the same are dismissed. No Costs.