Supreme Court | Verified Homebuyer Claims Under IBC Must Be Honoured in Full | Possession Cannot Be Denied Once Admitted by Resolution Professional
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that once a claim is verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, it cannot be treated as belated so as to deny substantive relief. The Court ruled in favour of the homebuyers, declaring that their verified and admitted claims could not be downgraded to the category of unverified claims and thereby confined to a partial refund. It directed the respondents to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession of the allotted apartment to the appellants within two months, setting aside the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT.
The matter arose under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appellants challenged the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), dated 10 January 2025, which had upheld the rejection of their plea by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Both tribunals had denied them possession of their residential apartment in the IREO Rise (Gardenia) project developed by M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited, an IREO Group company.
M/s Puma Realtors had undertaken large-scale development of integrated townships in Punjab, including the residential project in SAS Nagar, Mohali. The appellants, residents of Bengaluru, booked an apartment in 2010 and executed a Buyer’s Agreement on 27 May 2011 for Apartment No. GBD-00-001 in Block D at a consideration of ₹60,06,368. They paid ₹57,56,684, leaving only a balance subject to adjustment for delay in delivery.
The agreement stipulated possession by 27 November 2013. However, no possession was delivered. In 2018, the appellants filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, seeking refund, interest, and compensation. Meanwhile, on 17 October 2018, the NCLT admitted a Section 7 IBC application against Puma Realtors and commenced the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). In light of this, the consumer forum disposed of the complaint on 13 December 2018, granting liberty to the appellants to pursue their claim under the CIRP.
The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) issued a public announcement on 22 October 2018 calling for claims. The appellants initially filed a claim concerning a separate plot but maintained that they also submitted Form-CA for the apartment on 11 January 2019 at the Mohali office. This was disputed by the Resolution Professional, who argued that no such filing was made at the designated address in New Delhi.
Subsequently, owing to incomplete corporate records, the Resolution Professional issued an email on 31 January 2020 inviting resubmission of claims. Acting on this, the appellants resubmitted their claim on 7 February 2020 via email. Their claim was thereafter verified and included in the published list of financial creditors on 30 April 2020, at Serial No. 636, for ₹57,56,684.
Meanwhile, the Resolution Plan submitted by One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and APM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was approved by the Committee of Creditors on 23 August 2019 and later sanctioned by the NCLT on 1 June 2021. The plan provided different treatment for timely versus belated claims.
Despite the appellants’ inclusion in the creditors’ list, possession of the flat was not handed over. The appellants approached the NCLT seeking execution of the conveyance deed and possession. Their application was dismissed on 26 July 2023. On appeal, the NCLAT affirmed the decision, holding that their claim fell under Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan, which allowed only a 50% refund of the principal amount.
It noted: “The admitted and undisputed position remains that the Appellants claim was resubmitted on 07.02.2020; that it was duly verified by the Resolution Professional; and that it was incorporated in the published list of creditors dated 30.04.2020. Once such verification and incorporation occurred, the claim acquired full legal recognition within the CIRP process.”
The Court disagreed with the NCLAT’s reasoning: “We are unable to countenance the approach of the NCLAT in brushing aside this admitted position, and in treating the Appellants as if they had not filed any claim at all. 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.”
The Bench relied upon earlier jurisprudence: “Learned Counsel for the Appellants has rightly placed reliance on Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 245, wherein it was observed 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.”
Examining the Resolution Plan, the Court distinguished between its clauses: “Clause 18.4(ii) stipulates that where the claim has been filed and admitted by the Resolution Professional, and the allotment letter issued, the claim shall be honored in full. Clause 18.4(vi)(a) sets out the payment plan for existing allottees, providing for handover of units or execution of conveyance. By contrast, Clause 18.4(xi) is residuary in nature, applying where no claim has been filed, or if filed, not verified.”
“The Appellants case, on admitted facts, does not fall within Clause 18.4(xi). Their claim was filed, verified, and informed to the Successful Resolution Applicant, as is evidenced by the entry at Serial No. 636 in the list of creditors dated 30.04.2020, admitting their claim to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684/-. Once so admitted, their case squarely falls within Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a).”
The Court directed: “Respondent(s) shall execute the Conveyance Deed and hand over possession of Apartment No. GBD-00-001, Block D, IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali to the Appellants within a period of two months from today.”
“Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2023 titled ‘Paramjeet Kaur & Anr. v. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.’ was dismissed by this Court on 25.03.2025. Accordingly, I.A. No. 151506 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2025 is rejected.”
“The relief(s) sought by the Appellants in the present appeal are thus granted in the terms aforesaid. The appeal stands allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Adv.; Ms. Sonal Sarda, Adv.; Ms. Noyonika Deori, Adv.; Mr. R. Ilam Paridi, AOR; Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv.; Mr. R. Vishnu Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Saurav Beniwal, Adv.; Mr. Sidhant Verma, Adv.; Ms. Mansi Vats, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, AOR; Ms. Anuja Pethia, AOR; Mr. Noor Shergill, Adv.; Mr. Rishabh Govila, Adv.; Mr. Rishabh Nigam, Adv.; Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.; Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR.
Case Title: Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1086
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
