Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. - that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, after it is satisfied, that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements as referred to in subsection (2) of Section 30, it shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders.

 NCLT Kolkata (2025.06.18) in Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. [(2025) ibclaw.in 744 NCLT, I.A (IBC) No. 239 /KB/2025 in C.P (IBC) No. 302 /KB/2025] held that;

• that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, after it is satisfied, that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements as referred to in subsection (2) of Section 30, it shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders. 

Excerpts of the order;

# 1. This application has been filed in C.P (IBC) No. 302 /KB/2021, seeks the following reliefs:

• a. Impose fine to tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rs One Crore Only) on Axis Bank Limited for contravention of the approved Resolution Plan:

• b. Impose fine to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rs One Crore Only) on Mr.Kankan Chatterjee, Vice President Axis Bank for contravention of the approved Resolution Plan.

• c. Direct the Respondent to issue No due Certificate to the Applicant No. 1 in accordance with clause 7.4.2 of the approved Resolution Plan.

• d. Ad interim relief in terms of prayers (c) and (d) above:

• e. Pass any other such order and /or orders as this hon'ble tribunal may deem fit and proper.

Facts of the Case

# 2. The Financial Creditor i.e. Yes Bank Limited filed an Application under section 7 of the IBC 2016 and vide order dated 11th February 2022, this Adjudicating Authority directed commencement of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. Subsequently, this Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 4th January 2024 approved the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor. 

Facts of the I.A (IBC) No. 239/KB/2025

# 3. The Present Application has been filed by the person in charge of the Management and control of the business and operation of the Corporate Debtor under section 60(5) Read With section 74(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for seeking directions upon the Respondent in the nature of penalisation on the Axis Bank Limited as well as its vice president, Shri Kankan Chatterjee under section 74(3) of the IBC 2016 for knowingly and wilfully contravening Resolution Plan approved by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 4th January 2024 and further for seeking direction upon the Respondent to issue a “No Dues certificate” and remove the name of the Corporate Debtor/Applicant No.1 namely Sarga Hotel Private Limited from the list of defaulter in Nesl records in accordance with the

approved Resolution Plan.

# 4. One of the Financial Creditor, Axis Bank filed its proof of claim as an unsecured Financial Creditor for amount of Rs 23,27,88,821 (Rs Twenty-Three Crore Twenty Seven Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty One ). The Resolution Professional accepted the claim and included in the list of unsecured creditors.

# 5. The Respondent held 5.91% of voting share and the Respondent voted in favour of the approval of Resolution Plan.

# 6. In accordance with Clause 7.4.2 of the approved Resolution Plan the Respondent is obligated to issue a No dues certificate to the Applicant No.1 pursuant to receipt of settlement amount stipulated in the Resolution Plan. Clause 7.4.2 of the approved Resolution Plan is incorporated herein below:

• “on payment of unsecured Financial Creditor settlement amount, the dues of the unsecured Financial Creditor, including the admitted claim of Axis bank Limited and or of any other creditor whose claim is admitted as unsecured Financial Creditor shall stand fully settled and satisfied and such unsecured Financial Creditor shall issue No due certificate to the Corporate Debtor. No claims or liability whatsoever, of any nature, either towards the principal dues, interest or penalty or any other amount, shall survival subsist against the Corporate Debtor or Resolution Applicant.”

# 7. Further, as per clause 16.34 of the Resolution Plan, the Respondent have to regularise all the loan account of the Corporate Debtor and has to make asset classification of such loan account as “standard”. Clause 16.34 of the Resolution Plan is incorporated herein:

• “the unsecured Financial Creditor shall regularise all the loan accounts of the Corporate Debtor and shall ensure that the asset classification of such loan accounts is “standard” in their books with effect from the effective date. Unsecured Financial Creditor shall intimate the credit information company/ies any information utility, Reserve Bank of India or any other regulatory authority to take note  and update its record. The Resolution Applicant undertakes to comply with all formalities as per RBI guidelines in this regard.”

# 8. Upon the approval of Resolution Plan vide order dated 4th January 2024, the Applicant No. 2 have made the entire payment to the creditors and stakeholders of the Applicant No.1 including Respondent. Further, the Applicant No. 2 has paid the second tranche of Rs 23,27,888 (Rs. Twenty-Three Lakh Twenty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Eight only) on 5th October 2024, vide UTR No. HDFCR520241 0599402905 towards full and final

settlement of all the claims of the Respondent.

# 9. After receiving the payment, the Respondent admitted to processing of No dues certificate to the Applicant No.1. Copy of the email dated 7th October 2024 is a as Annexed as Annexure G. 

# 10. It is further stated that since the Respondent did not act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Resolution Plan, a further email dated 15th October 2024, once again called upon the Respondent to issue No Dues Certificate and to remove the name of Applicant No. 1 from the list of defaulters in NeSL. Again, several emails were issued by applicant No. 2 to the respondent from time to time on 11th November 2024 and second  December 2024 annexed as Annexure J and Annexure K, respectively. However, the Respondent failed to adhere to terms of Resolution Plan and issue no dues certificate and failed to remove the name of Applicant no. 1 from the list of defaulters in NeSL even after repeated requests. Due to which serious Have been faced for availing any credit facilities despite the fact that the Applicant no. 1 is no longer under financial stress.

# 11. Later, the Applicant issued a legal notice to the respondent on 27th January 2025 for non-compliance of the order dated 4th January 2024. However, no response was received even to the legal notice.

Respondent Submission:

# 12. Pursuant to CIRP order dated 11th February 2022, the Respondent submitted Rs 23,29,60,085 (Rs Twenty-Three Crore Twenty Nine Lakh Sixty Thousand and Eighty-five Only) for admission of claim. However, the Resolution Professional admitted only Rs. 23,27,88,821 (Rupees Twenty-Three Crore Twenty-Seven Lakh Eighty- Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-One only). The claim of the Respondent is based on bank guarantee issued by the Corporate Debtor in favour of the custom department in respect of certain export obligation of the Corporate Debtor.

# 13. During the fourteen CoC meeting, the Respondent had sought certain clarification in connection with the treatment of bank guarantee prior to the voting of Resolution Plan.

# 14. Further, Respondent vide email dated 25th May 2023 requested RP to seek clarification on the treatment of bank guarantee from Applicant No. 2. The relevant excerpt of the email is incorporated is set out below:

• “we refer to the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Sarga Hotles Private Limited. Pursuant to our view of the Resolution Plan submitted by Shri Ram Multicon Private Limited (“Resolution Applicant”) dated 11 April 2023 (Resolution Plan). We request you to kindly seek clarification from the Resolution Applicant on the treatment of any bank guarantee in the event its corresponding export obligation of the Corporate Debtor is deemed to be satisfied, waived or extinguished. Please seek this clarification on the Resolution Plan so that the clarification can be voted along with the Resolution Plan as per timelines decided on the 14th Meeting of Committee of Creditors held on 24 May”.

# 15. The Applicant No. 1 vide clarification email dated 26th May 2023 agreed to cooperate in releasing the bank guarantee to the extent of export obligation. A copy of email dated is Annexed as Annexure R3.

# 16. It was only in the pretext of the clarification provided by the Applicant No. 2, the Respondent voted for approval of Resolution Plan. Hence, the plan stood approved with 100% voting share.

# 17. Pursuant to approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC, RP filed an Interlocutory Application (being I.A (IBC) No 1054/KB/2023) for approval of Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority. The Resolution Plan was approved by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 4 January 2024. Copy of plan is annexed as Annexure A of the instant application. 

# 18. Subsequent to the approval of Resolution Plan, applicant No. 2 has made payment as stated in the Resolution Plan on 5th October 2024. However, despite specifically agreeing vide the clarification email, the applicant has not taken any steps to release and return of bank guarantee. The applicant has followed up for no dues certificate, However, the applicant has taken no steps to compliance as per clarification email.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

# 19. Heard the learned counsel and perused the record.

# 20. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the bank guarantee expired on 12.03.2025. Therefore, the bank guarantee has no  bearing on the bank at all to pursue for seeking relief as per their clarification email dated 26 May 2023.

# 21. we find that the Resolution Plan was approved by this Adjudicating Authority on 4th January 2024, which is binding on all the stakeholders. As per the Resolution Plan the Respondent has to issue “No dues certificate”. The relevant clause 7.4.2 of the approved Resolution Plan is can be referred (supra).

# 22. As per the clause 7.4.3 of the Resolution Plan, the liability of Corporate Debtor extinguishes upon the approval of the Resolution Plan. The relevant clause 7.4.3 of the Resolution Plan is incorporated herein: 

• By virtue of the aforesaid, all liability of the Corporate Debtor in relation to any bank guarantee (invoked/uninvoked), performance guarantee (invoked/uninvoked ) issued by the unsecured Financial Creditor or any other bank / financial institution, whether claim in respect thereof have been admitted in the CIRP or not , along with any other contingent or future claims, liabilities and/or at the behest of, the Corporate Debtor, or incurred or undertaken by the Corporate Debtor, till effective date , whether claimed or not , whether admitted or not, crystallised or uncrystallised, invoked or uninvoked, known or unknown secured or unsecured, will be, and be deemed to be permanently extinguished, upon payment to the unsecured Financial Creditor, on and with effect from the effective date, and all liabilities of the Corporate Debtor in relation thereto will be written-off in full.

# 23. Further the Applicant No. 2 has made payment as per the Resolution Plan. The detail of the payment is Annexed as Annexure D in this Application.

# 24. As per section 31 of the IBC 2016, the Resolution Plan once approved is binding on all stakeholders. The section 31 incorporated herein:

• “Section 31: Approval of resolution plan. *31. (1) If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors under sub-section (4) of section 30 meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 30, it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, [including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed,] guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan. [Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before passing an order for approval of resolution plan under this subsection, satisfy that the resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation.]” [……….]

# 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd 2021 SCC OnLine SC 313 wherein it has been vociferously held that once the Resolution Plan is approved, all the claims of the Corporate Debtor, including that of its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders shall stand extinguished. The said extract is captured hereunder; Hence, once the Resolution Plan is approved, it is binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, shareholders of corporate debtor, creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors, successful resolution applicant and other stakeholders involved. The said extract is captured hereunder;

• “58. Bare reading of Section 31 of the I&B Code would also make it abundantly clear, that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, after it is satisfied, that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements as referred to in subsection (2) of Section 30, it shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders. Such a provision is necessitated since one of the dominant purposes of the I&B Code is, revival of the Corporate Debtor and to make it a running concern.

# 26. Therefore, we direct the Respondent to issue “No dues certificate” to the applicant No. 1 within 15 days from the date of order. We also direct the Respondent to remove the name of the applicant No. 1 as a defaulter from the Nesl Portal within 15 days from the date of order. Further, direction is given to the applicant No. 2 to file affidavit Upon issuance of No dues certificate and removal of applicant No. 1 name from the defaulter list from Nesl Portal.

# 27. List the matter on 18.07.2025.

--------------------------------------------------------- 

 

 

Mehek Lucky Pamnani & Anr. Vs. Amit Vijay Karia & Anr. - Hon’ble NCLAT has held that delay in filing a claim may be condoned if the liability is duly reflected in the books of account of the Corporate Debtor and is verifiable. It is observed that even where the claim was not filed within the prescribed period under Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations, the Resolution Professional may be directed to consider such claims, provided they are supported by credible documentary evidence and the name of the creditor is reflected in the records forming part of the Information Memorandum. The resolution applicant may, in such cases, be required to file an addendum to the resolution plan for reconsideration by the Committee of Creditors.

  NCLT  Mumbai-V (2025.07.02) in Mehek Lucky Pamnani & Anr. Vs. Amit Vijay Karia & Anr. [I.A. No. 4099 of 2024 IN C. P. No. 715/IB/C-V/2021] held that;

• Hon’ble NCLAT has held that delay in filing a claim may be condoned if the liability is duly reflected in the books of account of the Corporate Debtor and is verifiable. It is observed that even where the claim was not filed within the prescribed period under Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations, the Resolution Professional may be directed to consider such claims, provided they are supported by credible documentary evidence and the name of the creditor is reflected in the records forming part of the Information Memorandum. The resolution applicant may, in such cases, be required to file an addendum to the resolution plan for reconsideration by the Committee of Creditors.

• In this case it is an admitted fact that the liability corresponding to the claim of the applicants was disclosed to the Prospective Resolution Applicants even though the Applicants had not filed any claim within the statutory prescribed period. Accordingly, neither the claim of the applicants could be considered as undecided nor it could be considered that the Resolution Applicants have suddenly encountered such claim of the Applicants.

Excerpts of the order;

1. The I.A. No. 4099/2024 has been filed by Mehek Lucky Pamnani & Anr (hereinafter referred to as Applicants) against Amit Vijay Karia & Anr. (Respondents) under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) seeking reliefs as stated below:

1. That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside the Impugned Email dated July 12,2024 of the Respondent.

2. That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of a period of 423 days from the date of the public announcement and a period of 347 days as per Regulation 12 of the CIRP. Regulations in submitting the Claim Form CA

3. That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent to admit the claim of the Applicant's as filed in the Claim Form CA and further to include the Applicants' claim in the list of creditors.

4. That in the event this Hon'ble Tribunal is inclined to grant prayer (c), then this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent to intimate the successful resolution applicant of the inclusion of the Applicants' claim as homebuyers in respect of the Subject Flat.

5. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present lA, this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent to provide the Applicants with a copy of the resolution plan submitted in respect of the Corporate Debtor and approved by the committee of creditors.

6. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present lA, this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to stay the proceedings in respect of any application that the Respondent may have filed under section 31 of the IBC in respect of approval of the resolution plan approved by the committee of creditors of the Corporate Debtor.

7. For ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (e) and (f) above.

8. For such other orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice.

Brief Facts and submission as per the Application:

2. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Siddhi Raj Housing Project Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) vide this Tribunal’s Order dated 02.05.2023 in CP (IB)/715/MB/2021. The Corporate Debtor was developing a building named ‘Altus’ constructed on land admeasuring 4080.3 sq. m. bearing CS No. 1/464 of the Lower Parel Division situated at Delisle Road (also known as Budhkar Marg), Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

3. The Applicants have purchased Flat No 1302 (duplex) admeasuring 221.94 sq. m. carpet area on the 13th and 14th floor in wing A of the building named ‘Altus’ from the Corporate Debtor pursuant to the Sale Agreement. The Applicants agreed to pay a total sale consideration of ₹11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crores only) for the subject flat. The Sale Agreement records the receipt of ₹11,00,016/- on 8th August 2018 as  part  payment.  The  Applicants  availed  a  housing  loan  of ₹5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) from Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 29th December 2018, for the purpose of purchasing the said flat and on December 31, 2018 Piramal Capital Housing Limited disbursed an amount of Rs 4,50,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Four Crore and Fifty Lakhs only) towards the subject flat. Accordingly, the Applicants have, in aggregate, paid a sum of ₹4,61,00,016/- (Rupees Four Crores Sixty-One Lakhs and Sixteen only) towards the purchase of the said flat.

4. In 2018 applicants relocated to Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. In later half of June 2024, the applicants received information that Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Thereafter, the Applicant submitted the Claim Form CA on July 12, 2024 to the Respondent. Upon receipt of the claim, the Respondent replied by an email (“Impugned Email”) rejecting the Claim Form CA on the ground that the Claim Form CA was received after 347 days of the last date for the submission of the claim and the Respondent further advised the Applicants to approach the Tribunal for appropriate reliefs, including condonation of delay. The Applicants were also informed by way of the impugned email that on June 19, 2024 the committee of creditors have approved the resolution plan in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

5. The Applicants, residing in Melbourne, Australia, have filed the present Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of delay in submitting their claim in Form CA. They submit that they had no knowledge of the commencement of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, as the public announcement inviting claims was published solely in local newspapers in Mumbai. Owing to their residence abroad, they were unable to access or become aware of the said announcement in a timely manner.

6. The Applicants placing reliance on judgement of Hon’ble NCLAT in Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers P. LTd., 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 245 submitted that claim of the homebuyers who could not file their claim but the claims are reflected in the records of the CD, ought to have been included in the information memorandum, the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) ought to have taken note of liabilities. Therefore, making it an exception for individual homebuyers. Accordingly, the Applicants pray that the IA filed by them be allowed.

Submission of the Respondent No.-1

7. The Respondent No 1 submits that the present application is not maintainable, as the Applicant seeks relief under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for condonation of delay in submitting Claim Form CA dated July 12, 2024. In terms of Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, a creditor who fails to submit a claim within the time specified in the public announcement may, at the most, submit such claim up to the date of issuance of the request for resolution plans or within ninety days from the insolvency commencement date, whichever is earlier.

8. It is submitted that there is a delay of 423 days from the last date of the public announcement, and a delay of 347 days beyond the extended period permissible under Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. In view of the said delay, the rejection of the Applicants’ claim vide email dated 12th July 2024, is lawful being time- barred under the applicable provisions.

9. It is also submitted that allowing the Applicants’ claim at this stage would be contrary to the time-bound insolvency framework envisaged under the IBC and would undermine the sanctity of the CIRP process. Such relief is expressly barred by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Assn. v. NBCC (India) Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 401 and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531, `11qqqqqqq q

Submission of the Respondent No.-2

10. The Successful Resolution Applicant (‘SRA’/Respondent No.2) was allowed to be impleaded in this case vide order dated 03.09.2024.

11. Respondent No. 2 submits that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as the interim resolution profession of the Corporate Debtor and thereafter confirmed as Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 1st June, 2023. On 5th May 2023, as required under the CIRP Regulations, Public Announcement (Form A) was published in two newspaper, viz. the Free Press Journal in English Language and Navakal in Marathi language. To which several claims were received from various creditors and list of creditors was prepared and Respondent No 1 filed a report with Tribunal on 25th may 2023. The final updated list of creditors was prepared and uploaded on 11th June 2024.

12. On 30th June 2023, in the 2nd CoC meeting the draft advertisement of Expression of Interest (Form G) and timeline for submission for Resolution Plan was approved, the members of CoC also analyzed the eligibility criteria for Prospective Resolution Applicant (PRAs). On 28th July 2023, in 3rd CoC meeting, the members of the CoC approved the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) and Evaluation matrix. There after the members of CoC approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No 2 in the 14th meeting of CoC dated 19th June,2024.

13. Respondent No 1 on 24th June 2024 has filed IA No. 43 of 2024, inter alia praying for the approval of Resolution Plan and is pending for adjudication before the Tribunal.

14. Reliance was place on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RPS Infrastructure Ltd. V. Mukul Kumar, (2023) 10 SCC 718 and it was accordingly submitted that the present IA should be dismissed.

Observations & Findings

15. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. In the present Application, the Applicants essentially seeks to admit their claim form CA, which was filed with a delay of 423 days from the date of the public announcement and a delay of 347 days as per Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations.

16. It is noted that the applicants have purchased the Flat No. 1302 admeasuring 221.94 sq m. carpet area on the 13th and 14th floor in Wing A of building named ‘Altus’, situated at Delisie Road (Budhkar Marg), Lower Parel, Mumbai, vide sale agreement dated 20.08.2018. The total agreed sale consideration was Rs 11,00,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Eleven Crores only) out of which the sale agreement records receipt of Rs 11,00,016/- dated 08.08.2018. A housing loan of Rs 5,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees five crore only) was sanctioned by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. On 29.12.2018 and a disbursement of Rs 4,50,00,000/- (Indian Rupee four crore fifty lakhs only) was made by the lender on 31.12.2018. Thus, the total amount paid to the Corporate Debtor towards the subject flat stands Rs 4,61,00,016/-.

17. In 2018, the Applicants had relocated to Melbourne, Australia and were unaware of the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, which came to be known in June 2024. Upon becoming aware, the Applicants submitted their claim in Form CA on 12.07.2024. Such claim filed was rejected by Respondent-1 via impugned email citing a delay of 423 days from the date of the public announcement and a period of 347 days as per Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations. The Applicants were further informed via the impugned email that the committee of creditors have already approved the resolution plan on 19.06.2024.

18. Respondent-1 on 05.05.2023, as required under CIRP regulation, made a public announcement and Form A was published in two newspapers. There after the list of creditors prepared on claims received and a report is filed with the tribunal. Further a final list of updated creditors was prepared and uploaded on 11.07.2024.

19. It is also noted that, the CoC on 19th June 2024, in its 14th meeting have approved the Resolution Plan and Respondent-1 has filed an IA No. 43 of 2024, for the approval of Resolution Plan and is pending for adjudication before the Tribunal.

20. It is also a fact of the case that SRA was impleaded as respondent in the case vide order dated 03.09.2024 and on that day the Ld. Counsel for the SRA sought time to seek specific instructions with respect to the claim of the Applicant. Further Ld. Counsel of the RP informed the bench that the name of and amount of the Applicants was part of the MIS in the virtual data shared with all PRAs. Accordingly, it is observed that the virtual Data Room was duly made accessible to the prospective Resolution Applicant (PRAs), who were provided with the necessary details  to  access,  subject  to  the  execution  of  non-disclosure/confidentiality undertaking. It is further noted that the latest annual financial statements forming part of the Information Memorandum are provided for the financial years ending March 31, 2018 and March 31, 2019. Considering that the Applicant had purchased the flat vide sale agreement on 20.08.2018, the said transaction ought to have been reflected in the Financial statement for the year 2018-19. Consequently, PRAs did have complete knowledge of fact of Applicants’ agreement for purchase of the flat and payment of Rs. 461,00,016/-.

21. Under the circumstances the rejection of the claim of the Applicants by the Respondent No.1 is though justified on technical grounds of delay and claim having been received after the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC, however, such rejection is not found to sustainable keeping in view the facts of the case. Since the Respondent No.1 was aware of such claim of the Applicants he had included and reflected in the Information Memorandum/ Virtual Data Room prepared for the purposes of the Resolution of the Corporate Debtor as well as the Prospective Resolution Applicants including the Successful Resolution Applicant and Respondent No.2 herein was also fully aware of the Applicant’s claim. It is further not the case of the Respondent No.2, that it has not factored the Applicant’s claim in the Resolution Plan submitted, which has been subsequently approved by the CoC.

22. In the judgement of Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 245, the Hon’ble NCLAT has held that delay in filing a claim may be condoned if the liability is duly reflected in the books of account of the Corporate Debtor and is verifiable. It is observed that even where the claim was not filed within the prescribed period under Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations, the Resolution Professional may be directed to consider such claims, provided they are supported by credible documentary evidence and the name of the creditor is reflected in the records forming part of the Information Memorandum. The resolution applicant may, in such cases, be required to file an addendum to the resolution plan for reconsideration by the Committee of Creditors.

23. The Respondents relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Assn.v. NBCC (India) Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 401 have emphasized on the filing of claim within the stipulated time as the process of Resolution being time bound. In this regard it is stated that the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia refers to the Judgment in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531: (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

• “….. that a Resolution Applicant cannot be made to suddenly encounter undecided claims after the Resolution Plan submitted by him has been accepted and in the scheme of the Code, all claims must be submitted to, and decided by, the Resolution Professional so that the Resolution Applicant could proceed on a fresh plate”.

In this case it is an admitted fact that the liability corresponding to the claim of the applicants was disclosed to the Prospective Resolution Applicants even though the Applicants had not filed any claim within the statutory prescribed period. Accordingly, neither the claim of the applicants could be considered as undecided nor it could be considered that the Resolution Applicants have suddenly encountered such claim of the Applicants. Accordingly, and to that extent the facts of the present case are different.

24. The Respondent no.2 has also placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RPS Infrastructure Ltd. V. Mukul Kumar, (2023) 10 SCC 718.

1. In para 20 of this judgement, it has been observed as under

“20. If we analyse the aforesaid plea, it is quite obvious that Respondent 1 did what could be done to procure the corporate debtor’s record by even moving an application under section 19 of IBC. That it was not fruitful is a consequence of the corporate debtor not making available the material. It is thus not even known whether there was a reflection in the records on this aspect or not.”

In the facts of the present case there is no dispute to the aspect that the Applicant’s transaction was very much there in the records of the Corporate Debtor and so much so, liability corresponding to the claim of the applicants was disclosed to the Prospective Resolution Applicants.

2. Further in para 22 of the aforesaid judgement, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

22. Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers. This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant. In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party.”

In this para, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the publication in the newspaper would amount to knowledge of the commercial party. However, in the present case the applicant herein are individual home buyers and not commercial entity. Further they are located in Melbourne, Australia whereas the publication was in the local newspaper and therefore such publication cannot amount to deemed knowledge of the Applicants. However, there is nothing produced by RP on record to show that the Applicants were personally communicated about the process of the CIRP

3. Furthermore, in Para 24 of the above judgement, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“24. We have thus come to the conclusion that NCLAT’s impugned judgment cannot be faulted to reopen the chapter at the behest of the appellant. We find it difficult to unleash the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the resolution applicant.”

However, as mentioned above, in the present case the Prospective Resolution Applicant were disclosed the liability corresponding to the claim of the Applicants and under the circumstance there is no case of unleashing the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the Resolution Applicant.

Accordingly, it can be seen that the facts of the present case are different to the extent mentioned above.

25. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion hereinabove, we consider it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of the claim by the applicants herein and direct the RP to consider the claim after due verification in accordance with procedure and law.

26. Accordingly, IA 4099 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.

---------------------------------------------------------