Supreme Court Homebuyers Who Timely Submitted The Claim Cannot Be Denied Flat Possession If Admitted By Resolution Professional

Summary:

[1]The Supreme Court of India set aside the judgments of the NCLT and NCLAT, ruling that a homebuyer whose claim was verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional and included in the list of financial creditors should not be treated as a belated claimant. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to possession of their apartment as per the approved Resolution Plan, not a reduced 50% refund. The decision reversed the lower courts’ misapplication of the Resolution Plan and upheld the rights of bona fide homebuyers.

Facts:

• The case involved a civil appeal by Amit Nehra & Anr. against Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors. under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, concerning M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, an IREO Group company developing the IREO Rise (Gardenia) residential project in Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
• The appellants, Bengaluru residents, booked an apartment in 2010 and executed an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement on May 27, 2011, for the Apartment. The total sale consideration was Rs. 60,06,368, of which they paid Rs. 57,56,684. The agreed possession date was November 27, 2013, but the Corporate Debtor failed to deliver possession.
• In 2018, the appellants filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund and compensation. However, when CIRP was initiated against Puma Realtors on October 17, 2018, the consumer complaint was disposed of, and appellants were directed to pursue their claim within CIRP proceedings.
• A Resolution Plan by One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and APM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was approved by the Committee of Creditors on August 23, 2019, and by NCLT on June 1, 2021, with provisions for timely and belated claims.
• When their initial receipt of claim was rejected, appellants resubmitted their claim via email on February 7, 2020. Their claim for Rs. 57,56,684 was subsequently admitted and included in the financial creditors list published on April 30, 2020, at Serial No. 636.
• Despite the claim of admission, appellants were denied possession. Their NCLT application for conveyance deed execution and possession was rejected, as was their NCLAT appeal. Both tribunals held that since the claim was filed after the Committee of Creditors approved the Resolution Plan, it constituted a belated claim subject to a 50% refund under Clause 18.4(xi) of the plan.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellants’ claim, which was verified and admitted, should be treated as a belated claim.
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to possession of the apartment or only a reduced refund as per Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan.
3. Whether the NCLT and NCLAT correctly applied the Resolution Plan by denying the appellants possession despite their admitted claim.

Judgement:

• Status of the Claim: The Court focused on the admitted and undisputed position that the appellants’ claim was resubmitted on February 7, 2020, and subsequently verified, admitted, and incorporated into the published list of financial creditors on April 30, 2020. The Court emphasized that this act of verification and inclusion was a discharge of a statutory duty by the Resolution Professional and gave the claim “full legal recognition” within the CIRP.
• Correct Interpretation of the Resolution Plan: The Court meticulously analyzed the clauses of the Resolution Plan. It was determined that Clause 18.4(xi), which provided for a 50% refund, was a residuary clause applicable only to allottees who had not filed a claim, whose claim was not verified, or whose claim was not informed to the Resolution Applicant. The appellants’ case did not fit this description because their claim had been verified and admitted. Instead, the Court found that their claim fell squarely under Clause 18.4(ii) and Clause 18.4(vi)(a), which governed allottees with admitted claims and entitled them to possession.
• Procedural Fairness and Vested Rights: The judgment highlighted that denying the appellants’ possession would be a “misapplication” of the Resolution Plan rather than an enforcement of it. The Court noted that the appellants were bona fide homebuyers who had paid nearly the entire consideration years ago, and to relegate them to the status of mere refund claimants would be contrary to the very object of the legislative framework and would inflict “unfair and unwarranted prejudice.”
• Rejection of Lower Court’s Findings: The Supreme Court directly addressed and rejected the reasoning of the NCLT and NCLAT, which had mechanically treated the appellants as belated claimants simply because their claim was filed after the CoC approved the plan. The Court found that this approach brushed aside the admitted fact that the claim had been officially verified and admitted. The Court also dismissed the argument about the disputed physical filing of the claim on January 11, 2019, stating that the resolution of the appeal did not hinge on this point, as the undisputed resubmission and verification of the claim in 2020 were sufficient.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces that the verification and admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional is a statutory act that cannot be disregarded. It highlights the importance of correctly applying the provisions of a Resolution Plan to avoid injustice to bona fide parties. The ruling protects homebuyers by ensuring that their rights are respected, especially when they have diligently followed the process and their claims have been officially recognized. The Court emphasized that it is not a case of entertaining a fresh claim, but rather of ensuring that an already admitted claim is treated fairly according to the plan.

[1] Amit Nehra & Anr. Versus Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4296 OF 2025

Judgment Dated: September 9, 2025