AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: Prabhat Kumar, Member (Technical)
The IA 2114/2023 is filed by Sh. Priyash Suresh Sanghvi and Sh. Suresh C. Sanghvi (“Applicants”) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of M/s D. S. Kulkarni Developers Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) u/s 60(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to seek direction to Sh. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, the Resolution Professional (“Respondent”) to admit their claim as Financial Creditors under class of Home-Buyers. The Applicant in IA 2114/2023 claims to have purchased a Flat No. 601, G Wing, admeasuring 39.13 Sq. Mtrs. And terrace of 6.60 Sq. Mtrs. Attached to the said flat in the project named as “DSK Vishwa Ph-IV Aanandghan and paid a sum of Rs. 26,62,460/-towards the purchase of said flat. The Applicant has claimed interest thereon @ 18% aggregating to Rs. 10,78,295/-, thus filed a total claim of Rs. 37,40,755/- in Form CA.
Another IA 2117/2023 is filed by Ms. Piyuja Suresh Sanghvi and Sh. Suresh C. Sanghvi (“Applicants”) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of M/s D. S. Kulkarni Developers Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) u/s 60(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to seek direction to Sh. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, the Resolution Professional (“Respondent”) to admit their claim as Financial Creditors under class of Home-Buyers. Applicant in IA 2117/2023 claims to have purchased a Flat No. 201, G Wing, admeasuring 39.13 Sq. Mtrs. And terrace of 6.60 Sq. Mtrs. Attached to the said flat in the project named as “DSK Vishwa Ph-IV Aanandghan and paid a sum of Rs. 25,57,880/- towards the purchase of said flat. The Applicant has claimed interest thereon @ 18% aggregating to Rs. 10,35,945/-, thus filed a total claim of Rs. 35,93,823/-in Form CA.
Since, the fact pertaining to both the applications are same, this Bench consider it appropriate to dispose of both application by this common order.
Both of the applicants have filed the claim in form CA on 31.03.2023. The CIRP in the case of Corporate Debtor commenced on 26.09.2019, and the Public Announcement inviting claims from the Creditors was made on 30.09.2019 whereby the claims were to be filed the creditors on or before 9.10.2019. It is the case of the applicant(s) that they came to know about the commencement of CIRP on 22.3.2023.
These claims were rejected by the Resolution Professional vide email dated 3.4.2023 stating that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has approved Resolution Plan in case of Corporate Debtor on 13.08.2021, and an updated list of claims as on 9.8.2021 has been filed with this Tribunal. It was further stated that an application under section 31 of the Code has filed before this Tribunal on 24.08.2021 seeking its approval of Resolution Plan. Accordingly, it may not be possible to consider their claim at this stage. The Applicants have filed these applications seeking condonation of delay of 1197 days.
We heard the Counsel and perused the material on record.
We find that this Tribunal has approved the Resolution Plan in the case of Corporate Debtor vide its Order dated 23.06.2023 in IA 1950 of 2021. Accordingly, the claims of the Applicants can not be considered even in terms of decision of Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of Puneet Kaur, through her Attorney Amrit Pal Singh vs K V Developers Private Limited Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 390 of 2022, wherein it was held that the claims of homebuyer if found in the books of accounts, can be considered even after approval of the plan by CoC in terms of directions stated in the said decision. In the present case, even the Plan stands approved by this Tribunal, and this Tribunal can not give directions to CoC and SRA to consider the claim of the Applicants at this stage. We are of considered view that these applications can not be allowed by condoning the delay even in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 102 SC.
In view of foregoing, the IA 2114/2023 & IA 2117/2023 are dismissed.