The NCLAT in the case of Pooja Mehra Vs. Nilesh Sharma RP for Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., had to primarily examine the validity of the Home-Buyer- Appellant’s belated claim, which was submitted after a delay of 552 days after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the committee of creditors (CoC), but was still pending approval with the Adjudicating authority.
Both sides filed and placed reliance on a large number of judicial precedents. The NCLAT, while examining the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘RPS Infrastructure v. Mukul Kumar’, held that the ratio of the case, i.e., 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 corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) an endless process, applies to commercial as well as non-commercial entities. The NCLAT also emphasised that the objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is to economically rehabilitate the Corporate Debtor, and to fulfil this objective, it is crucial to adhere to the time frame laid down in the IBC to prevent creditors from bringing up belated claims against the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). Additionally, the NCLAT rejected the Appellant’s reliance on ‘Puneet Kaur v. KV Developers’ and held that the judgement was not applicable to the present case. As such, the NCLAT, while upholding the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, rejected the belated claim filed by the Appellant, stating that the belated claims by homebuyers cannot be considered once the CoC has approved the Resolution Plan.
Mr. Vaibhav Mahajan and Ms. Harshita Aggarwal represented the Appellant. The Resolution Professional was represented by Ms. Varsha Banerjee and Ms. Mahima Ahuja, and Respondent No.2, i.e., SRA was represented by Mr. Prithu Garg, partner at GnS Legal along with Mr. Parth Bhatia, and Mr. Shivam Singh, associates at GnS Legal.
