Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-004296 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 12633/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all adjudicating authorities under the IBC |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 |
| Questions of Law | Whether a homebuyer’s claim, once verified and included in the list of financial creditors, must be dealt with under the full-entitlement clauses of an approved resolution plan (Clause 18.4(ii)/(vi)(a)) rather than the belated-claim clause (Clause 18.4(xi)). |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that once a homebuyer’s claim is verified by the Resolution Professional and reflected in the published list of financial creditors, it cannot be relegated to the belated-claim category under Clause 18.4(xi). Such claims must be honoured in full under Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the approved resolution plan. The publication of the list is not a mere formality but a binding recognition of admitted claims. Ignoring that distinction would defeat the legislative scheme of the IBC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 245 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellants booked and paid ~Rs. 57.56 lakhs for an apartment in 2011, possession due 2013. CIRP against the corporate debtor began in 2018. The homebuyers filed their claim (allegedly in Jan 2019 and by e-mail in Feb 2020), which was verified and admitted — reflected at Serial No. 636 in the list of financial creditors published on 30.04.2020. The NCLT and NCLAT treated them as belated claimants under Clause 18.4(xi), awarding only 50% refund. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All adjudicating authorities under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 |
| Overrules |
|
| Follows | Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 245 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirmed that a homebuyer’s claim, once verified and published in the list of financial creditors, must be treated under the full-entitlement clauses (18.4(ii)/(vi)(a)) of an approved resolution plan, not under the belated-claim clause (18.4(xi)).
- Emphasizes that publication of the list of financial creditors by the Resolution Professional is a binding act recognizing admitted claims.
- Clarifies the distinct scope and operation of sub-clauses 18.4(ii), 18.4(vi)(a) versus 18.4(xi) in resolution plans.
- Lawyers can cite this decision to resist attempts to relegate verified homebuyer claims to residual refund categories.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The CIRP process and approved resolution plan differentiated between admitted claims (Clause 18.4(ii)/(vi)(a)) and unverified/belated claims (Clause 18.4(xi)).
- The appellants’ claim was undisputedly verified by the RP and included at Serial No. 636 in the published list on 30.04.2020—an act binding on all stakeholders.
- Clause 18.4(xi) applies only to homebuyers with no claim, unverified claim, or claims not communicated to the resolution applicant; it does not cover claims that have been verified and published.
- Reliance on Puneet Kaur NCLAT decision reinforced the fairness imperative: even late-filed homebuyer claims reflected in corporate records must be addressed in the plan.
- To ignore the admitted claim and apply Clause 18.4(xi) would nullify the plan’s structured hierarchy and prejudice bona fide allottees who paid substantial consideration.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Homebuyers)
- Paid ~Rs. 57.56 lakhs, bona fide allottees with vested rights.
- Claim filed (11.01.2019) and re-submitted (07.02.2020) upon RP’s invitation; duly verified and admitted.
- Entitled to possession or equivalent unit under Clause 18.4(ii)/(vi)(a), not 50% refund under Clause 18.4(xi).
Respondent(s) (Resolution Professional & Resolution Applicant)
- No proof of physical claim on 11.01.2019; only e-mail claim on 07.02.2020.
- Resolution Plan approved on 23.08.2019; therefore Clause 18.4(xi) governs and limits refund to 50%.
- Appellants slept over their rights despite earlier filing for a different project.
Factual Background
The appellants booked an apartment in “IREO Rise (Gardenia),” Mohali, in 2010–11 and paid nearly the full sale price. The corporate debtor entered CIRP in October 2018. The homebuyers submitted their claims in early 2020, which the RP verified and listed on 30.04.2020. Although the resolution plan was approved in June 2021 with homebuyer-specific treatment under Clause 18.4, the NCLT and NCLAT treated them as belated claimants under Clause 18.4(xi) and awarded only 50% refund, prompting this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 7 IBC: Admission of CIRP application against the corporate debtor.
- Section 62 IBC: Appeal to the Supreme Court against NCLAT order.
- Resolution Plan Clause 18.4:
- 18.4(ii) and 18.4(vi)(a): Full entitlements for claims filed and admitted by the RP, including delivery of units or conveyance deeds.
- 18.4(xi): Reduced refund (50%) for no, unverified, or uncommunicated claims.
- 18.4(xix): Treatment of claims filed after plan submission but before plan approval.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms existing jurisprudence on recognition of verified homebuyer claims in CIRP (Puneet Kaur).