National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Iifl Home Finance Limited vs Pankaj Narang on 9 October, 2023
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1321 of 2023 &
I.A. No. 4677 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
IIFL Home Finance Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Narang Liquidator of KV Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Nishant Awara,
Ms. Rini Badoni, Ms. Veera, Advocates.
For Respondent: Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Mr. Shaurya
Shyam, Mr. Raghav Dembla, Advocates for SRA.
Mr. Aman Raj Singh, Mr. Harish Taneja, Advocates for
RP.
ORDER
09.10.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bench-III, New Delhi) by which I.A. No. 1925 of 2023 has been rejected. The appellant case is that there was Tripartite Agreements with the Corporate Debtor and the Homebuyers in pursuance of which claim was filed which was not accepted by Resolution Professional and by email dated 30.04.2021 appellant was communicated that the claim was rejected. Appellant filed an I.A. challenging the order dated 30.04.2021 and also praying to admit the claim which application was dismissed for non- prosecution on 03.10.2022. Appellant thereafter filed another application I.A. No. 1925 of 2023 dated 04.04.2023 praying for following reliefs:-
"A. Set aside and quash the Email dated 30.04.2021 whereby the Resolution Professional has rejected the claims of the Applicant;
Cont'd.../ -2- B. Direct the Resolution Professional to admit the entire amount of Rs. 6,22,09,194,44/- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Two Lakhs Nine Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Four and Forty Four Paise) (as on 28.01.21), as "Financial Debr";
C. To Direct the RP to share the resolution plan with applicant; and/or D. To create a lien / charge of the Applicant on the flats (being developed by the Corporate Debtor) which are mortgaged with the Applicant by the Flat Buyers;
E. Pass any other and/or further order(s) in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondent, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice."
2. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application on the ground that plan has already been approved on 19.04.2023, hence, the application cannot be accepted.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant challenging the order contends that the application was filed even before plan was approved, hence, Adjudicating Authority ought to have considered the application on merits.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that the application was filed after the order was reserved in the plan approval application on 03.10.2022 and Adjudicating Authority has not committed error in rejecting the application for acceptance of claim.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. The Resolution Professional has communicated the appellant on 30.04.2021 regarding the rejection of the claim. An application was filed by the appellant which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter I.A. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1321 of 2023 -3- No. 1925 of 2023 was filed in April, 2023 whereas Adjudicating Authority has already heard the plan approval application and reserved in October, 2022.
7. We, thus, are of the view that reasons given by Adjudicating Authority for rejecting the application that plan has already been approved, therefore, claim cannot be considered at this stage, cannot be faulted.
8. The submissions of the respondents are fully supported by Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021 decided on 11.09.2023].
9. We, thus, are of the view that no error can be found in the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the application filed by the appellant, Appeal is dismissed.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the mortgage was created in term of Tripartite Agreements and SARFAESI Act, 2002 proceedings were initiated prior to CIRP. On basis of this submission, the order of Adjudicating Authority cannot be faulted.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) [Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) sa/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1321 of 2023