2025 (1) TMI 949 - AT - IBC

Seeking direction to Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to decide the claim Form dated 11.01.2019 submitted by the Appellant for getting the Conveyance Deed of the Apartment GBD-00-001 (Block D) in IREO RISE (Gardenia Block) executed - Appellant s claim regarding the apartment was filed on 11.01.2019 or 07.02.2020 - what is the date on which the Appellants can be said to have filed their claims? - HELD THAT - The filing of the claim was not in accordance with public announcement. The claim was required to be filed at the address and email given at Item Sl. No.10 of the public announcement at the New Delhi address. It is further relevant to notice that Appellants itself has submitted that it has filed its claim on 29.10.2018 with regard to claim of Plot which was well within time by email. Thus the Appellants were well aware that claim has to be filed by email at the email address or at New Delhi address mentioned above. Thus the pleadings made by the Appellant itself prove that there was no claim filed as per public announcement. Hence the plea of the RP has to be accepted that claim for the first time was filed on 07.02.2020. The Appellants case also is that on 07.02.2020 they have submitted their claim after receiving the email from the RP. The Appellant never filed any claim on 11.01.2019 and the claim for the first time was filed on 07.02.2020. The Resolution Plan which is brought on the record as Annexure A-4 is dated 24.08.2019 which was finally approved on 04.09.2019. Thus the Clause 18.4 (xi) has to be read with reference to the date when the Plan was approved. On the date when Plan was approved the Appellant has not filed the claim admittedly. Their case of submitting claim on 11.01.2019 has not been accepted as noted above. The purpose and object of Clause 18.4 (xi) is to even protect those allottees who have not filed the claim so as to consider their claims on merits and the claims which were not filed were not extinguished for the purpose to mitigate the hardship of those who have not filed their claims within the time. The Resolution Plan having been approved all stakeholders including allottees are clearly bound by the same. Conclusion - The Appellant never filed any claim on 11.01.2019 and the claim for the first time was filed on 07.02.2020. The Appellant s claim was filed late and is covered by Clause 18.4 (xi) entitling them to 50% of the principal amount. The request for possession and execution of the Conveyance Deed was denied. Appeal disposed off.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment primarily revolves around the following core legal issues:

Whether the Appellant's claim regarding the apartment was filed on 11.01.2019 or 07.02.2020, and the implications of this on the Appellant's entitlement under the Resolution Plan.
Whether the Appellant's claim is covered under Clause 18.4 (xi) or (xix) of the approved Resolution Plan.
Whether the Appellant is entitled to the full amount of the principal or only 50% as per the Resolution Plan.
Whether the Appellant's request for the execution of the Conveyance Deed and possession of the apartment is legally tenable under the approved Resolution Plan.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

First Issue: Date of Claim Submission

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the public announcement made under Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which required claims to be submitted by a specified date.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and pleadings, concluding that the claim was not filed on 11.01.2019 as alleged by the Appellant. The claim was actually submitted on 07.02.2020, after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Key evidence and findings: The Appellant's own pleadings admitted that the claim for the apartment was not initially filed due to a pending consumer complaint. The public announcement required claims to be submitted by email or at a New Delhi address, which was not done by the Appellant.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the Appellant did not comply with the procedural requirements for claim submission as outlined in the public announcement.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent argued that the claim was filed late, which the Tribunal accepted based on the evidence.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the claim was filed on 07.02.2020, not 11.01.2019.

Second Issue: Coverage under Resolution Plan Clauses

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Clause 18.4 (xi) and (xix) of the approved Resolution Plan, which outline the treatment of claims filed after the cut-off date.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted Clause 18.4 (xi) as applicable to the Appellant's claim, which was filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.
Key evidence and findings: The Resolution Plan was approved on 23.08.2019, and the Appellant's claim was filed on 07.02.2020, making it subject to the provisions of Clause 18.4 (xi).
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Clause 18.4 (xi) to determine that the Appellant is entitled to only 50% of the principal amount.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant argued that their claim was admitted and should be covered by Clause 18.4 (xix), but the Tribunal found otherwise based on the timing of the claim submission.
Conclusions: The Appellant's claim is covered by Clause 18.4 (xi), entitling them to a refund of 50% of the principal amount.

Third Issue: Entitlement to Full Amount or 50%

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The provisions of the Resolution Plan and the IBC.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the Appellant's claim, being filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan, is entitled to 50% of the principal amount as per Clause 18.4 (xi).
Key evidence and findings: The List of Creditors issued on 30.04.2020 included the Appellant's claim, but this did not alter the applicability of Clause 18.4 (xi).
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the Resolution Plan's provisions to determine the Appellant's entitlement.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant's argument for full entitlement was rejected based on the Resolution Plan's clear provisions.
Conclusions: The Appellant is entitled to a refund of 50% of the principal amount.

Fourth Issue: Execution of Conveyance Deed and Possession

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The IBC and the terms of the approved Resolution Plan.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Appellant's request for possession and execution of the Conveyance Deed was not tenable under the approved Resolution Plan.
Key evidence and findings: The Appellant's claim was not filed in time to warrant such reliefs under the Resolution Plan.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the Resolution Plan's terms to reject the Appellant's request for possession and execution of the Conveyance Deed.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant's request was not supported by the provisions of the Resolution Plan.
Conclusions: The Appellant is not entitled to the execution of the Conveyance Deed or possession of the apartment.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The Appellant never filed any claim on 11.01.2019 and the claim for the first time was filed on 07.02.2020."
Core principles established: Claims filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC are subject to the terms of the Plan, specifically Clause 18.4 (xi), which limits the refund to 50% of the principal amount.
Final determinations on each issue: The Appellant's claim was filed late and is covered by Clause 18.4 (xi), entitling them to 50% of the principal amount. The request for possession and execution of the Conveyance Deed was denied.

← Previous Next →