National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Dinesh Gambhir & Another vs Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd on 9 May, 2024
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 785 of 2024
& I.A. No. 2721, 2845 of 2024
In the matter of:
Dinesh Gambhir & Anr. ....Appellants
Vs.
Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
(Through Nilesh Sharma- RP)
For Appellant Mr. C.S. Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent Mr. Kanishk Khetan, Mr. Ashu Kansal, Mr. Akash
Srivastava, Advocates for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 09.05.2024: I.A. No. 2721 of 2024:- This is an application praying for condonation of re-filing delay of 60 days. Reasons given in the application is that the appeal was filed on 25.01.2024 and thereafter defects were communicated more than once and time was taken to clear the defects. Delay in re-filing is condoned.
I.A. No. 2845 of 2024:- This is an application praying for condonation of 11 days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken is that the order could be uploaded only after 5 days and the appellant is a senior citizen was not well and could consult his advocate which took some time. Cause shown sufficient. Delay is condoned.
2Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 785 of 2024 :-
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi, Court-III by which order the Adjudicating Authority rejected IA No. 2953 of 2023 filed by the Appellant. Appellant has filed his claim before the Resolution Professional on 05.03.2022 whereas Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC on 12.08.2021. The Adjudicating Authority noticed the facts and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s. R.P.S. Infrastructure Limited vs. Mukul Kumar and Anr.- Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021" and dismissed the IA.
3. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has filed his complaint before the NCDRC which was pending when the CIRP commences.
He further submits that the Resolution Professional is asking for exorbitant interest from the Appellant. It is submitted that the interest which was claimed by the Resolution Professional is unjustified.
4. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that the Appellants are the persons who have been already handed over the possession and they are residing in the units and their claims which were sought to be filed is claim regarding compensation for delay in possession and other issues.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 785 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2721, 2845 of 2024 3
5. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the claim was filed by the Appellant after approval of the plan by the CoC. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the claim of the appellant by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M/s. R.P.S. Infrastructure Limited vs. Mukul Kumar and Anr.- Civil Appeal No. 5590 of 2021". Insofar as the submission of the Appellant that the Resolution Professional has asked for payment of exorbitant interest, it is always open for the Appellant to file an appropriate application if any such letter or demand is made by the Resolution Professional during pendency of the CIRP.
7. With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) [Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 785 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2721, 2845 of 2024