AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Bhushan, J.
These two Appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai, Court-II in IA No.5094 of 2024 and IA (IBC) (Plan) No.75 of 2024 in C.P.(IB) No.719/MB/2022. The application filed by the Appellant being IA No.5094 of 2024 has been rejected by the impugned order and by separate order of the same date 10.10.2025, IA (IBC) (Plan) No.75 of 2024 has been approved. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, these two Appeals have been filed.
Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are:-
A Real Estate Project namely— ‘Kingsville’ previously known as ‘Sunshine Infinity’ for construction of a building was started as slum rehabilitation project by one ‘Grace Developers’. The project was transferred in the year 2009 to a company called ‘Sunshine Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited’ (SHIPL), by way of a Development Agreement. ‘Sunshine Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited’ started the project. The Appellant society was registered on 10.09.2018 consisting of homebuyers of the project. There being certain financial difficulties with ‘Sunshine Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited’, MoU dated 06.11.2018 was entered between the Appellant society and ‘Sunshine Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited’ where it was noted that the members of the society including the proposed members are responsible to pay collectively Rs.28,05,60,738/-towards their balance payment. First party took responsibility to collect and pay aforesaid amount to second party i.e. ‘Sunshine Infinity Co-operative Housing Society Limited’ so that the project can be satisfactorily completed. First party was also to supervise the completion of the work and payments to vendors on behalf of the second party shall also be made by the first party. The project proceeded. ‘Sunshine Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited’ transferred the entire project on a slump sale basis by way of a deed of business transfer undertaking dated 18.03.2019 in favour of SQ Infrastructure Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor herein. Corporate Debtor needed financial assistance from the Appellant. One more MoU was entered between the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant dated 17.08.2019 under which Appellant took to form a corpus of minimum amount of Rs.9 Crore for project completion. The company was to use all receivable amounts from committed sales or new sale has to be deposited/ to be accumulated in the Escrow A/c managed by Axis Finance Limited from whom the company has taken finance. A third MoU dated 23.03.2021 was entered between the Appellant and the Corporate Debtor where Corporate Debtor was required to pay Rs.4.5 Crores towards obtaining occupancy certificate and other expenses. The Corporate Debtor approached the company for stop gap funding of Rs.4.5 Crores. Developer has agreed that commercial premises on the ground floor of the said project shall be mortgaged to the society to the extent of priority funding arranged by the society (shop admeasuring 800 sq. ft. and mezannine 400 sq. ft. with two parking and the apartment area on the ground floor). The Corporate Debtor obtained the Occupancy Certificate. Corporate Debtor had also made repayment of certain amounts to the society. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced on 18.12.2023. IRP in pursuance to initiation of CIRP made publication on 21.12.2023 inviting claims. Last date for submission of the claim was 01.01.2024. After receiving the claims, the CoC was constituted. Reports were submitted by the Resolution Professional regarding constitution/re-constitution of the CoC. Form G was issued inviting Resolution Plans. Last date for submission of EoI was 02.03.2024 and last date for submission of the Resolution Plan was 01.05.2024. On 06.03.2024 one Mr. Prateek Jayesh Vira, Member of the Appellant society wrote a letter to the Secretary and Managing Director of the Appellant, regarding filing of claim before the Resolution Professional in the CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor. The said letter was also forwarded to the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant wrote to Mr. Pratik Jayesh Vira on 14.03.2024 informing that with respect to corpus and additional corpus collected by society from its members’ final settlement of the society with developer was made in the General Body Meeting held on 04.04.2023 and society its meeting dated 02.05.2023 had resolved and approved the full and final settlement of its claim against the developer, in response to which developer has complied with its obligation and had executed a registered Sale Agreement of the commercial unit on the ground floor. The letter sent by Mr. Pratik Jayesh Vira was objected by the society and was termed as misleading letter. On 14.03.2024, the Resolution Professional also wrote to the society to file its claim in the CIRP. The Resolution Plan received in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor came for consideration which Resolution Plan was approved in the 9th CoC meeting held on 06.07.2024.
Appellant by e-mail dated 07.08.2024 sent its claim in Form C to the Resolution Professional. Resolution Professional on 14.08.2024 replied the e-mail of Appellant informing that the claim has been filed by the Appellant after specified deadline under Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations 2016 and Resolution Professional has also filed an application for approval of the Resolution Plan. The claim of the Appellant at this stage cannot be verified. Appellant after receiving intimation from the Resolution Professional has filed an IA No.5094 of 2024 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking a direction of condonation of 142 days’ delay in filing the claim and seeking direction to the Resolution Professional to consider and verify of Rs.22.72 Crore claim. Resolution Professional filed reply to the above application. In the reply, apart from pleadings that claim was filed with inordinate delay, Resolution Professional has referred to correspondence received from Mr. Pratik Jayesh Vira on 14.03.2024. Letter of the Resolution Professional to the Appellant to file claim on 14.03.2024. It was further pleaded that there was no claim of society left it having settled with the developer in its General Body Meeting held on 02.05.2023 where society has settled its claim with developer and developer has already executed Agreement to Sell for commercial shop in the ground floor. No claim was left with the society and Applicant has approached the Tribunal by filing application by concealing relevant facts and has not come with the clean hands. Adjudicating Authority heard the parties and by the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 rejected IA No.5094 of 2024. Adjudicating Authority held that the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor having been approved on 06.07.2024, delayed claim filed on 07.07.2024 could not have been admitted. Claim was filed by the Appellant beyond timelines stipulated under law. It was also noticed that the books of the Corporate Debtor do not reflect any amount due and payable to the applicant. Letter dated 14.03.2024 written by the society where full and final settlement of the claim of society was noticed. Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application. By order of the same dated 10.10.2025 Adjudicating Authority allowed IA (IBC) (Plan) No.75 of 2024 approving the Resolution Plan. It was held that the Resolution Plan is in compliance of Section 30(2) of the IBC. After examining all aspects of the plan, Adjudicating Authority approved the plan and issued consequential direction. Aggrieved by these two orders, these Appeals have been filed.
We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Krishnendu Datta, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent- Resolution Professional.
Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the claim filed by the Appellant was based on amount which was spent by the Appellant on behalf of the Corporate Debtor by making various payments to the Corporate Debtor as well as to the vendors of the Corporate Debtor. Relevant materials to prove the payments have been brought on record. Appellant after immediately becoming aware of the CIRP filed its claim on 07.08.2024 which claim was not verified by the Resolution Professional on account of the delay. It is submitted that due to financial problem of the Corporate Debtor under 2nd and 3rd MoU, corpus was raised by the Appellant and amounts were made to the Corporate Debtor towards completion of the construction and payment of certain taxes owe to the statutory authorities. The alleged settlement dated 02.05.2023 relied by the Resolution Professional was breached. Society has passed a resolution cancelling the settlement. The society having paid money to the Corporate Debtor and its vendors which is proved by materials on record, Corporate Debtor was liable to repay the amount and Resolution Professional committed error in not verifying the claim. Adjudicating Authority also on technical ground of delay rejecting the claim where claim raised by the Appellant was genuine and deserved to be admitted.
Shri Krishnendu Datta, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the claim filed by the Appellant was grossly delayed and was an afterthought. Society’s entire claim was satisfied which was recorded in General Body Meeting held on 02.05.2023. Society had no claim against the Corporate Debtor due to which society never filed any claim. The Resolution Professional itself has written to society on 14.03.2024 for filing a claim but no claim was filed. Resolution Plan having been approved on 06.07.2024 claim filed by the Appellant vide e-mail dated 07.08.2024 could not have been accepted. The claim of the Appellant was not reflected in the financial statement of the Corporate Debtor. No claim existed, filing of claim was afterthought and was with suppression of facts. It is submitted that the plan has already been implemented and CIRP process has already been closed by order of the Adjudicating Authority.
We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Appellant is registered co-operative society of 69 homebuyers of the project. The project was being developed by ‘Sunshine Infinity Co-operative Housing Society Limited’ and MoU dated 06.11.2018 is claimed between the Appellant and ‘Sunshine Infinity Co-operative Housing Society Limited’ where society undertook to pay collectively Rs.28,05,60,738/- which was receivables from the homebuyers of the project and which was utilised for payment to the vendors and contractors. 1st MoU reads as under:-
“AND WHEREAS the members including the proposed members of the "Party of the First Part" are responsible to pay collectively Rs. 28,05,60,738/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Crore Five Lakh Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Eight Only) subject to satisfactory completion of the project to the "Party of the Second Part" to wards balance payable as per the consideration / agreement agreed by individual members, as per ANNEXURE-"A" attached hereto.
AND WHEREAS the "Party of the First Part" has requested "Party of the Second Part" to appoint another/additional Architect if required, to monitor completion of remaining construction of "The Said Project", and that the receivables of about Rs. 28,05,60,738/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Crore Five Lakh Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Eight Only) from the Flat purchasers to be received and payments of vendor and contractors be made there from. "Party of the second part" also agrees to give the "Party of the First Part" confirmation note duly signed by the flat owners mentioning amount receivable from each such flat purchaser.”
‘Sunshine Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited’ which was developing the project had transferred the project as slump sale to SQ Infrastructure Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor and all rights and liabilities were undertaken by the Corporate Debtor of the developers. 2nd MoU dated 19.08.2019 and another MoU dated 23.03.2021 was entered into society with the Corporate Debtor. Under 1st MoU, society agreed to raise corpus of Rs.9 Crore for completing the project. Under 2nd MoU, the Corporate Debtor needed a temporary stop gapping funding of Rs.4.5 Crores for obtaining occupancy certificate and other charges. Developer gave security of unsold shop admeasuring 800 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the project in favour of the society. Society’s own case which is apparent from the record is that in a General Body Meeting of the society held on 02.05.2023 full and final settlement of claim of the society against the developer has arrived at under which developer agreed to execute and register Agreement for Sale in respect of shop on the ground floor in the building of society. Developer was also to issue an irrevocable NoC for refund of LUC and Property Tax in favour of society and further society issuing NoC for release of its claim over Flat No. 1001. Corporate Debtor executed a registered Agreement to Sell of shop in question and also complied other terms and conditions. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor had commenced on 18.12.2023. Publication was made by IRP on 21.12.2023. Last date for filing claim was 01.01.2024. The present is a case where Appellant had filed its claim on 07.08.2024 beyond the time as per Regulation 12(1) of the CIRP Regulations and subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan which plan was approved on 08.06.2024.
Resolution Professional has refused to verify the claim on the ground that it has been filed beyond the time. Application filed by the Appellant seeking direction to IRP to accept the claim has been rejected. The question to be considered in the present case is as to whether the decision of the Resolution Professional and the Adjudicating Authority not verifying the claim and order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the application is sustainable. Adjudicating Authority after noticing the facts and sequence of the events did not find any good ground to accept the belated claim submitted by the Appellant. In paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4, Adjudicating Authority made following observations:-
“4.3.In the present case, it is seen that the claim was submitted by the Applicant beyond the timeline stipulated under the law, and therefore, the RP could not have admitted the same. Record reveals that the Respondent/RP filed I.A. (IBC) (Plan) No.75 of 2024 on 08.08.2024 before this Adjudicating Authority, after the Plan had been approved by the CoC on 06.07.2024. The Applicant was already informed of all the developments in the CIRP of the CD by the Respondent/RP. However, the Applicant filed the present I.A. on 11.10.2024. Considering the facts and the legal position, we are not inclined to buy the contention of the Applicant that it took time to collate relevant documents from the individual homebuyers as such contention is not supported by any evidence.
4.4.The Respondent/RP has submitted that the books of the CD do not reflect any amount due and payable to the Applicant. Further, the Respondent has relied upon the letter dated 14.03.2024, wherein the full and final settlement of the claim, by virtue of the Settlement Agreement with the developer, was reflected. Admittedly, the CD had already complied with the settlement by executing registered agreement the sale of commercial units on the ground floor of the 'Sunshine Infinity' in favour of the Society. The Society has also taken possession of the same, Further, pendency of approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, after the same having been approved by the CoC, is no ground for considering an invalid claim of the Applicant. Any challenge, at this juncture, to the decision of the Respondent/RP in rejecting the claim would amount to challenging the Resolution Plan already approved by the CoC. The Applicant has also not demonstrated whether, he validly represents the Society or has any authorisation from the alleged homebuyer-creditors to represent them. Hence, we hold that the Applicant does not have any locus to pray for admission of its claim. This I.A., therefore, does not have any merit and is only liable to be rejected.”
The Resolution Professional in its reply to IA No.5094 of 2024 has given details and sequence of the entire fact in the CIRP. It is useful to notice paragraphs 5 and 6 of the reply of the IRP which is as follows:-
“5.It is pertinent to note herein that this aforesaid reason given by the Applicant is merely an eye-wash and an attempt by the Applicant to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal and the Applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal with unclean hands. While the Applicant claims that it became aware of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor only on 11 March 2024, a communication dated 06 March 2024 was addressed by one, Mr. Pratik Vira to the Applicant informing the Applicant to file its alleged claim with the Interim Resolution Professional on account of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. This letter was also copied to the Interim Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. In response to this communication dated 06 March 2024, the Applicant addressed a letter dated 14 March 2024 to Mr. Pratik Vira informing him that the Applicant has informed Mr. Pratik Vira that in the light of the settlement between the Applicant and the Corporate Debtor which was arrived at pursuant to the Resolutions passed at the Special General Body Meeting of the Applicant on 02 May 2023, and which has been acted upon by the parties, there is no claim of the Applicant against the Corporate Debtor. This communication was also marked to the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor. These aforesaid communications are referred to hereinbelow.
6.In these circumstances, it is evident that the reasons given by the Applicant for its failure to submit a claim before this Hon'ble Tribunal are given with a view to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal and to prevent the true and correct facts in this regard being placed on record. It is evident from these communications that not only was the Applicant consciously aware of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor prior to the communication dated 11 March 2024 being addressed by the Resolution Professional, but more importantly, without prejudice to the fact that the claim of the Applicant itself is disputed, the Applicant consciously and deliberately did not file a claim with the Resolution Professional.”
The letter written by member of the society Mr. Pratik Jayesh Vira to the Appellant dated 06.03.2024 which is brought on the record by the Appellant as Annexure 16 was written on the subject “Filing of claim before Resolution Professional in the Company Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") Initiated upon SQ Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ("Developer")”. In the said letter, the member of the society requested the society to file a claim within seven working days from the date of the letter. Copy of the order and commencement of the CIRP was forwarded by said letter. The said letter was also forwarded to the Resolution Professional.
The reply given by the society to the said letter is relevant for the entire controversy in the present case which letter has been filed by the Appellant as Annexure A-18 to the Appeal. It is useful to quote the entire letter written by Appellant copy of which also forwarded to the Resolution Professional. Letter reads as follows:-
Date: 14th March 2024
“To, Mr. Pratik Jayesh Vira,
1201, Om Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd..
Dr. M. B. Raut Road.
Shivaji Park, Dadar West, Mumbai-400 028.
Sub.: Filing of Claim before Resolution Professional in the Company Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") initiated upon SQ Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. ("Developer").
Ref.: Your letter dated 6th March 2024.
Sir, We are in receipt of your above referred letter dated 6th March 2024 ("the said Letter") and in reply thereto we have to state as under: -
1.At the outset, we are shocked and surprised after reading the contents of the said Letter as the contents of the same are misconceived, misguiding and far from reality.
2.As you are aware that the Corpus and Additional Corpus have been collected by the Society from its members, pursuant to the consensus arrived between the members to complete the Project at the earliest. You are also aware that such amounts have been collected by the Society and the same are paid by the members to the Society.
3.It is matter of fact that in the Emergency Special General Body Meeting of the Society held on 4th April 2023, for the agenda of Full and Final Settlement of the Society against the Developer, wherein you had objected to the same by stating that the value of Balance FSI of the Project should be ascertained before settling with the Developer and had suggested that an opinion of Architect be taken for ascertaining the value of FSI. Accordingly, a resolution came to be passed as under: -"RESOLVED THAT Mr. Pratik Vira is authorized to coordinate with Architect and get Architect Certificate with the remuneration Rs.2,00,000/- including out of pocket expenses are approved by the member present"
4.It is a matter of fact that though the Society had given you a clear mandate and authority to get an Architect Certificate to ascertain your claims of the developer having an advantage in the proposed full and final Settlement, however you failed and neglected to get an Architect Certificate to prove your point.
5.It is clear that your intentions were only to create a hurdle in the full and final settlement of the claim of the Society against the Developer, which you were able to achieve by delaying the same.
6.It is a matter of fact that the Society in its Special General Body Meeting held on 2 May 2023, had resolved and approved the Full and Final Settlement of the Claim of the Society against the Developer viz. SQ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd..
7.Accordingly, pursuant thereto the Developer has complied with its obligation and has executed and registered an Agreement for Sale in respect of the Commercial Units on the Ground Floor of Sunshine Infinity in favour of the Society and the possession whereof is also given to the Society.
8.The Society shall be selling the aforesaid Commercial Unit, and the proceeds thereof shall be distributed between the members in proportion to the amounts contributed by each member.
9.Hence, you are kindly requested to again take note of the same and restrain from addressing such misleading letters and give advice which is prejudicial to the interest of the Society and its members.
10.Also, please take note that the Developer has till date not confirmed that your transaction in respect of the Flat No. 2601 is complete, hence you arc kindly requested to get the same done at your earliest. We understand that you were also a promoter of the Sunshine Group of which SQ Infrastructure is a group company and this is an attempt to mislead the Society.
11.We reserve our right to deal with your letter in detail, if required
12.We hope that wiser counsel shall prevail upon you, and you shall forthwith withdraw the said letter. For Sunshine Infinity Co-operative Housing Society Limited Secretary CC to: (1) Deputy Commissioner of Police - Zone IV, (ii) Senior Police Inspector - RAK Marg Police Station, (iii) Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society (iv) Mrs. Chetna Sutaria. RP of SQIPL.”
The above letter clearly indicate that the society has taken clear stand that claim of society against the developer has already been settled in Special General Body Meeting held on 02.05.2023 and developer has complied its obligation. The member of the society who has written the letter was cautioned “Hence, you are kindly requested to again take note of the same and restrain from addressing such misleading letters and give advice which is prejudicial to the interest of the Society and its members”. Thus, it is the clear stand of the society after commencement of the CIRP was that society does not have any claim against the developer.
The Resolution Professional on 14.03.2024 has also written to the Appellant to file its claim. The claim was not filed by the society in spite of having been written by a member of the society as well as the Resolution Professional on 07.03.2024/ 14.03.2024. The Resolution Plan in the CIRP came to be considered and approved on 06.07.2024 and it was after approval of the plan that society filed belated claim on 07.08.2024.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr.- Civil Appeal No.5590 of 2021” decided on 11.09.2023 wherein in paragraph 8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred to the judgment in “Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors.- (2020) 8 SCC 534”, which is as follows:-
“8.The challenge by the respondent no.1 before the NCLAT was primarily based on the potential consequences of allowing such a belated claim when the COC had already approved the Resolution Plan. The appellant having made the claim more than a year after the invitation of claims by the public notice dated 30.03.2019; it was urged that allowing such claims would set the clock back on the CIRP and set a precedent, thereby making CIRP prolonged and inefficacious. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on the judgment in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors.¹, where this Court opined that a successful resolution applicant cannot be faced with undecided claims after the resolution plan has been accepted. This Court observed:
"...A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count."
On the other hand, the appellant explained that it could not file the claim in time as it was unaware of the public announcement. A belated claim should not be shut out as the time-periods in the IBC are merely directory and not mandatory as per Brilliant Alloys Private Limited v. Mr. S. Rajagopal & Ors., and in any case the resolution plan was yet to be approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant contended that respondent no.1 had failed to discharge his duty to include the appellant's claim in the information memorandum as a contingent liability.”
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 19 to 21 laid down following:-
“19.The second question is whether the delay in the filing of claim by the appellant ought to have been condoned by respondent no. 1. The IBC is a time bound process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which the time can be increased. The question is whether the present case would fall within those parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of 287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the Corporate Debtor is an undoubted fact. We believe that the appellant ought to have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid circumstances to find out whether the Corporate Debtor was undergoing CIRP. The appellant has been deficient on this aspect. The result, of course, is that the appellant to an extent has been left high and dry.
20.Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers. This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant. In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party.
21.The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority 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. As described above, in Essar Steel, the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC.”
The present is a case where society in writing has taken a stand in its letter dated 14.03.2024 that all claims against the developer has been settled. Society was asked by its member as well as by the Resolution Professional to file its claim despite this, no claim was filed. The claim was filed by society only on 07.08.2024 by that time plan was already approved and filing of the said claim clearly much beyond the time as stipulated in Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting IA filed by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority has also observed that claim of society was not reflected in the financial statements of the Corporate Debtor.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also contended that in fact the settlement between the parties which was recorded in the meeting dated 02.05.2023 was breached, hence, the Appellant had every right to file its claim. We have already noticed the letter dated 14.03.2024 of society where society itself in writing has stated that developer has complied its obligation. Any plea which is now sought to be taken thereafter is only an afterthought and cannot be accepted to be any valid reason for accepting the belated claim filed by the society.
Mr. K. Dutta has further submitted that the Resolution Plan which was approved much beyond filing of the claim has also been implemented and CIRP closed.
In view of the foregoing discussions and our conclusions, we are of the view that the present is not a case for exercising our appellate jurisdiction to interfere in the order impugned. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.