Corporate Debtor's Records Hold Key to Homebuyers' Belated Claims: NCLAT

Corporate Debtor's Records Hold Key to Homebuyers' Belated Claims: NCLAT

Introduction

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench, has ruled that claims filed by homebuyers cannot be rejected merely for being filed beyond the stipulated time if the unit is reflected in the corporate debtor’s own records.

Factual Background

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings against the corporate debtor began on 11.08.2023. The Appellant did not submit its claim within the prescribed timeline but its unit was recorded in the list of homebuyers who had yet to file claims.

Procedural Background

The Appellant filed an Interlocutory Application challenging the rejection of its belated claim, which the Adjudicating Authority dismissed. The present appeal followed.

Issues

The key issue was whether homebuyers’ claims can be rejected solely for delay if the units are reflected in the corporate debtor’s records.

Contentions of the Parties

Appellant’s Contentions:

• The rejection was unjustified because its unit was acknowledged in the records.
• The Resolution Professional (RP) should have considered the claim despite delay.

Respondent’s Contentions:

• The claim was rightly rejected for being time-barred.
• Allowing late claims could derail the insolvency process.

Reasoning & Analysis

The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Arun Baroka relied on Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Rahul Jain v. Nilesh Sharma, reiterating that if a unit is reflected in the debtor’s records but omitted from the Information Memorandum, the RP must provide details to the Resolution Applicant for possible inclusion in an addendum to the resolution plan.

Implications

This decision highlights that the insolvency process must account for genuine homebuyers’ claims even if filed late, provided they are backed by the corporate debtor’s own records.

Outcome

The appeal was disposed of with directions to the RP to submit the Appellant’s details for possible inclusion. The Tribunal clarified that merely adjusting unclaimed units does not amount to verification or acceptance of individual claims.

In this case, the Appellant was represented by Ms. Eshna Kumar, Mr. Harpreet Singh Malhotra, Mr. Siddharth Bhatli, Ms. Khyati Jain, and Ms. Anvesha Jain, Advocates.

The Respondent was represented by Mr. Akash Srivastava, Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Ms. Prithu Garg, Mr. Shivam Singh, and Mr. Ashutosh Arvind Kumar, Advocates for R2.