AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
Heard counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
These two appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj) in I.A. Plan No.5/2024 in C.P. (IB) No.39/ALD/2023.
Appellant claims to be homebuyers of the corporate debtor who has filed their claim which was accepted as contingent claim by the Resolution Professional (RP) and in the resolution plan for contingent claim, an amount of Rs.1 crore has been capped which plan has been approved by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that cap of Rs.1 crore is not in accordance with law and that when contingent claim was accepted the entire amount should have been covered. He further relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority’ Vs. ‘Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.’ in [Civil Appeal No.7590-7591/2023] and submits that in similar matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the plan to Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration.
Learned counsel Mr. Dinkar Singh appearing for the respondent submits that it was the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) proposal for capping of Rs.1 crore which was approved by the CoC and on the said proposal, the appellant’s claim was not accepted, since the said claim was already rejected by the RERA Authority against which the appeal has been filed by the appellant which is pending.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records.
There is no dispute between the parties that claim of the appellant was accepted as contingent claim in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and in the resolution plan an amount capping to Rs. 1 crore was made, as offered by the SRA which has been approved by the CoC. On the question as to what payments are offered by the resolution plan, it is the commercial wisdom of the CoC to take a decision and when the cap of Rs.1 crore for contingent claim has been approved by the CoC, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be heard in objecting to the capping of Rs.1 crore.
Now coming to the judgment relied by the appellant in ‘Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority’ (supra), in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 55 has directed as follows:
“55.As we have found that neither NCLT nor NCLAT while deciding the application /appeal of the appellant took note of the fact that,- (a) the appellant had not been served notice of the meeting of the COC; (b) the entire proceedings up to the stage of approval of the resolution plan were ex parte to the appellant; (c) the appellant had submitted its claim, and was a secured creditor by operation of law, yet the resolution plan projected the appellant as one who did not submit its claim; and (d) the resolution plan did not meet all the parameters laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, we are of the considered view that the appeals of the appellant are entitled to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2022 is set aside. The order dated 04.08.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the resolution plan is set aside. The resolution plan shall be sent back to the COC for re-submission after satisfying the parameters set out by the Code as exposited above. There shall be no order as to costs.”
In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority’ (supra), the claim was filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority which was not accepted which was held to be secured creditors, in the above background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the plan and remanded the matter for CoC to consider the claim of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as secured creditors. The said judgment does not come to any aid of the appellant in the facts of the present case.
We thus do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned at the instance of the appellant.
Both the appeals are dismissed.