NCLAT Upholds Rejection Of Homebuyer’s Claim Filed 4 Days Before CoC Vote On Resolution Plan
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has upheld the rejection of a homebuyer’s claim filed shortly before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting scheduled to vote on a resolution plan, holding that belated claims under the CIRP Regulations can only be admitted if they are submitted at least seven days prior to such meetings. The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) observed that where a claim is filed within seven days of the CoC meeting for approval of the resolution plan, the Resolution Professional is not required to verify or collate such claim under the applicable regulations.
The appeal was filed by homebuyer Suman Chopra challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which had dismissed her application seeking admission of a claim of ₹10.30 lakh in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
The corporate debtor had been admitted into CIRP on 27 February 2023 and the Resolution Professional issued a public announcement inviting claims from creditors on 7 July 2023. However, the appellant submitted her claim in Form CA only on 15 March 2024, which was four days before the CoC meeting scheduled for 19 March 2024 to vote on the resolution plan. The Resolution Professional declined to verify and place the claim before the CoC, stating that Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C) of the Insolvency Resolution Process Regulations permit verification and collation of belated claims only if they are submitted up to seven days before the CoC meeting for voting on the resolution plan.
Aggrieved by the refusal of the Resolution Professional, the appellant approached the NCLT seeking condonation of delay and a direction to admit her claim of ₹10,30,258 and include it in the resolution process. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application on the ground that the claim had been filed in violation of the timelines prescribed under the CIRP Regulations, leading to the present appeal before the NCLAT.
Before the appellate tribunal, the appellant argued that the liability underlying her claim was already reflected in the records of the corporate debtor and therefore the Resolution Professional ought not to have rejected the claim merely on procedural grounds. It was also contended that the Resolution Professional had failed to comply with Regulation 6A of the CIRP Regulations, which requires individual communication to be sent to creditors whose details are available in the books of accounts of the corporate debtor.
The appellant further relied on earlier decisions of the tribunal in Rahul Jain v. Nilesh Sharma and Sonia Kapoor v. Arunava Sikdar, where belated claims were directed to be incorporated into the resolution plan when the liability was reflected in the corporate debtor’s records.
Opposing the appeal, the Resolution Professional submitted that the claim had been filed nearly 245 days after the public announcement inviting claims and therefore suffered from significant delay. It was argued that the claim was also filed less than seven days before the CoC meeting scheduled to vote on the resolution plan, which was impermissible under Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C). The Resolution Professional further pointed out that the resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC with more than 99% voting share, and entertaining such belated claims would disrupt the resolution process.
After examining the material on record, the tribunal noted that the public announcement inviting claims had been issued on 7 July 2023, while the appellant submitted her claim only on 15 March 2024. The Bench observed that the appellant had failed to provide any plausible explanation for the delay of 245 days in filing the claim.
The tribunal also held that once a public announcement inviting claims is issued, creditors are deemed to have knowledge of the insolvency proceedings and the timelines prescribed under the CIRP Regulations. In this context, the Bench observed that “prima facie this is a case where the Appellant for no justifiable and plausible reasons had dropped their guard of being vigilant in pursuing their claims within time-lines.”
The appellate tribunal then examined the relevant provisions of Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C) of the CIRP Regulations. It observed that these provisions allow the Resolution Professional to verify and collate belated claims only if such claims are submitted up to seven days before the meeting of the CoC for voting on the resolution plan or initiation of liquidation.
In the present case, the appellant filed her claim merely four days before the CoC meeting scheduled for voting on the resolution plan. The tribunal therefore held that the Resolution Professional had correctly declined to admit the claim as it was not filed within the permissible timeline prescribed under the regulations.
The Bench further noted that the precedents relied upon by the appellant were distinguishable. Those cases dealt with belated claims filed before the introduction of Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C), which came into force on 18 September 2023. Since the appellant’s claim was filed after the introduction of these provisions, the earlier judgments could not be relied upon to seek admission of the delayed claim.
The tribunal also referred to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that belated claims should generally not be entertained as they may disrupt the insolvency resolution process and delay its completion. It observed that allowing new claims after the resolution plan has reached the stage of approval by the CoC could undermine the objective of timely resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
In view of these findings, the tribunal held that neither the Resolution Professional nor the Adjudicating Authority had committed any error in refusing to admit the claim filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the NCLAT upheld the order of the NCLT rejecting the application for admission of the delayed claim and dismissed the appeal. However, the tribunal observed that it would remain open to the appellant to approach the successful resolution applicant regarding her claim, leaving it to the resolution applicant to consider such request within the overall financial outlay provided under the resolution plan.
Cause Title: Suman Chopra Vs Arvind Kumar
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1331/2025
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member)
