Homebuyers with Admitted Claims Entitled to Possession; Supreme Court Directs Conveyance and Handover

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 arising from a challenge to NCLAT and NCLT orders that denied delivery of possession of a residential apartment to purchasers whose claims had been admitted in the corporate insolvency resolution process.

The Court allowed the appeal by Amit Nehra and another, set aside the NCLAT judgment dated 10.01.2025 and the NCLT order dated 26.07.2023, and directed the respondents to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession of Apartment No. GBD-00-001, Block D, IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali within two months. The Court emphasised that where a buyer’s claim was verified and included in the published list of financial creditors, it acquired "full legal recognition within the CIRP process" and could not be treated as a belated unverified claim falling under the restrictive Clause 18.4(xi) of the approved resolution plan. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: <I> “…However, we are of the view that the claim of those homebuyers, who could not file their claims, but whose claims were reflected in the record of the corporate debtor, ought to have been included in the information memorandum and resolution applicant, ought to have taken note of the said liabilities and should have appropriately dealt with them in the resolution plan. Non-consideration of such claims, which are reflected from the record, leads to inequitable and unfair resolution as is seen in the present case. To mitigate the hardship of the appellant, we thus, are of the view that ends of justice would be met, if direction is issued to the resolution professional to submit the details of homebuyers, whose details are reflected in the records of the corporate debtor including their claims, to the resolution applicant, on the basis of which the resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum to the resolution plan, which may be placed before the committee of creditors for consideration…..” </I> The Court also recorded that "the publication of the list of financial creditors is an act in discharge of a statutory duty by the Resolution Professional. It cannot be reduced to a meaningless formality."

Background
The dispute arose from bookings made in 2010 and a Buyer’s Agreement dated 27.05.2011 for an apartment in the IREO Rise (Gardenia) project developed by Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The appellants paid Rs. 57,56,684 of the Rs. 60,06,368 sale price; possession was contractually due on or before 27.11.2013 but was not delivered. After a consumer complaint, CIRP was initiated against the corporate debtor by NCLT on 17.10.2018. The Interim Resolution Professional issued a public announcement dated 22.10.2018 calling for claims; the appellants alleged an initial physical filing of Form‑CA on 11.01.2019 (which the respondents disputed) and resubmitted the claim by email on 07.02.2020 following an RP communication of 31.01.2020. The RP admitted their claim for Rs. 57,56,684 and published it at Serial No. 636 in the list of financial creditors on 30.04.2020.

The approved resolution plan prescribed different treatments under Clause 18.4 for verified/admitted claims and for belated/unverified claims (Clause 18.4(xi)). The NCLT found no proof of the alleged January 2019 filing and treated the claim as filed on 07.02.2020, after approval by the Committee of Creditors, applying Clause 18.4(xi) and allowing only a 50% refund; the NCLAT affirmed that approach. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that once a claim was verified and incorporated in the published list of creditors it could not be relegated to the limited relief under Clause 18.4(xi). The Court followed and relied upon the reasoning in Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. regarding the obligation to consider claims reflected in the corporate debtor’s records. The final outcome granted the appellants the relief sought: execution of the conveyance deed and delivery of possession within two months; the appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2025
Case Title: Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]
For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]