Rajkumar Jhawar & Anr. Vs Arun Kapoor & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi)
Summary: 1. Background of the dispute and registered purchase of Flat No. 1002: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Rajkumar Jhawar & Anr. Vs Arun Kapoor & Ors., decided on 30 June 2026, examined whether genuine homebuyers could be deprived of their allotted residential flat merely because their claim was submitted after approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), despite their registered agreement and allotment particulars being available in the corporate debtor’s records. The appellants, Rajkumar Jhawar and Shobha Jhawar, had entered into a registered Agreement for Sale dated 23 April 2012, bearing Registration No. 4264/2012, for Flat No. 1002 on the tenth floor of the Vermont Wing in the Monarch Brookefields project at Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai. The agreed consideration was ₹42 lakh. The appellants maintained that they had paid the entire contractual consideration and were entitled to possession under the agreement, which contemplated delivery within 36 months together with a grace period of 90 days. However, the developer, Monarch Brookfields LLP, failed to hand over possession. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings were subsequently initiated against the developer under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), following an application by Capri Global Capital Ltd. Mr. S. Gopalakrishnan initially served as Interim Resolution Professional, while Mr. Arun Kapoor was subsequently appointed Resolution Professional on 3 August 2021. The appellants contended that, although their registered purchase documents existed in the corporate debtor’s records, their entitlement to the flat was ignored during preparation and consideration of the resolution plan. The central question was whether the principles of finality and extinguishment of claims under an approved resolution plan could justify excluding an identifiable homebuyer whose allotment was already recorded in the material available to the insolvency professionals.
2. Delayed claim, NCLT proceedings and conflicting positions of the Resolution Professional: The appellants stated that old age, heart-related ailments, deterioration of health during the COVID-19 pandemic and the prolonged delay in the real estate project prevented them from learning about the insolvency proceedings until June 2024. Immediately after becoming aware of the CIRP, they submitted their claim to the Resolution Professional by email dated 11 June 2024. The claim concerned ₹42 lakh together with interest, although the appellants subsequently confined their request for treatment as homebuyers to the contractual value of the flat. The RP rejected the claim on 12 June 2024 on the ground that it had been submitted after the CoC had approved the resolution plan and the application for its approval had been reserved for orders. The appellants filed I.A. No. 3390/2024 before the NCLT Mumbai Bench on 15 June 2024, seeking exclusion of Flat No. 1002 from the resolution process. While that application remained pending, the NCLT approved the resolution plan on 27 August 2024. The NCLT subsequently dismissed the appellants’ application on 21 November 2024, reasoning that a claim not forming part of the approved plan could not be pursued independently. Before the NCLT, the RP had asserted that he could not trace records showing receipt of the sale consideration in the corporate debtor’s account. During the appeal, however, additional documents and an affidavit disclosed the registered agreement, the corresponding entry in the virtual data room and receipts reflecting payments totalling ₹65.72 lakh. The appellants argued that these shifting positions revealed serious deficiencies in verification of their claim. The appellate tribunal therefore examined whether the RP had discharged the responsibility of identifying and dealing with homebuyer entitlements reflected in the corporate debtor’s existing records, rather than rejecting the claim solely because of delay.
3. Payment evidence, registered agreement and competing claim of an alleged investor: A major factual issue concerned the financial transactions supporting the appellants’ entitlement to the flat. The registered Agreement for Sale recorded the agreed price as ₹42 lakh and acknowledged an initial payment of ₹6,75,625. The appellants also relied on receipts, bank transactions and a State Bank of India housing loan sanctioned for ₹30 lakh, of which ₹20,96,375 was stated to have been disbursed. During the appeal, the RP’s affidavit identified five receipts aggregating ₹65,72,000, including ₹6,75,625, ₹20,96,375, ₹5 lakh, ₹3 lakh and ₹30 lakh. Although the RP questioned why the recorded receipts exceeded the agreed flat price, the appellants explained that the excess ₹23.72 lakh was to be refunded or adjusted against other charges and that they would pursue any separate entitlement independently. Their immediate claim was restricted to recognition as homebuyers for the ₹42 lakh contractual consideration. The dispute was complicated by the RP’s recognition of a competing claim from Amit Kriplani and Mini Kriplani, who had received a reservation letter dated 24 October 2011 for the same unit and had submitted a claim during CIRP in November 2019. Their documents reflected a payment of ₹44,48,500 and an option, after one year, to receive a premium of 2% per month on the amount invested instead of retaining the flat. The appellants argued that the Kriplanis were investors seeking financial returns rather than genuine purchasers intending to occupy the residential unit. They emphasised that the competing claim rested on an unregistered reservation letter, whereas their own claim was supported by a registered Agreement for Sale. The NCLAT examined the competing documents and concluded that the return-oriented terms of the Kriplanis’ arrangement were material to distinguishing a speculative investment from a genuine home purchase.
4. NCLAT findings on the Resolution Professional’s negligence and virtual data room records: The appellate tribunal considered the RP’s affidavit dated 29 August 2025, filed following directions requiring a comprehensive explanation of the registered agreement and payments. The affidavit acknowledged that the original Interim Resolution Professional had created a virtual data room containing an entry for Flat No. 1002 in the Vermont Wing, showing Registration No. 4264 dated 23 April 2012 and identifying Rajkumar Anandaram Jhawar and Shobha Jhawar as the persons in whose favour the agreement was registered. This established that the appellants’ allotment was not an entirely new or undisclosed claim arising after approval of the resolution plan. The information had already formed part of the corporate debtor’s records accessible to the insolvency professionals and prospective resolution applicants. The NCLAT expressed serious concern that the RP and successful resolution applicant had failed to bring this material before the Adjudicating Authority when the appellants’ application was considered. It also found a material contradiction between the RP’s earlier statement that no payment records could be located and his later acknowledgment of the registered agreement and receipts. The Tribunal characterised these inconsistencies as demonstrating inefficiency and negligence on the part of the Resolution Professional. Although the RP maintained that communications had been sent to homebuyers during CIRP, he failed to produce any document establishing that the appellants had been individually informed. The Tribunal held that, where a homebuyer’s registered allotment was already available in the corporate debtor’s records, the RP and successful resolution applicant could not disregard that information and then rely exclusively on the homebuyer’s failure to submit a timely claim. The omission was particularly significant because the virtual data room and Information Memorandum formed the factual basis upon which resolution applicants formulated their proposals.
5. Distinction between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors under the IBC: The NCLAT analysed the difference between a genuine residential allottee and a person primarily seeking financial returns from a real estate transaction. It examined the reservation letter issued to Amit Kriplani and Mini Kriplani, noting that the arrangement expressly permitted the allottees to receive a premium of 2% per month after one year in lieu of retaining the flat. The Kriplanis had no registered Agreement for Sale in their favour and had sought recovery of their invested amount with interest through their claim in the insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal referred to the principles discussed by the Supreme Court in Mansi Brar, including the treatment of speculative investors in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Union of India. The relevant distinction was whether the person genuinely intended to acquire possession of a dwelling unit or primarily entered the transaction to obtain a refund, assured return or profit. The Tribunal emphasised that this assessment must be holistic, taking into account the contractual terms, payment structure, allotment documents and conduct of the parties. Applying those principles, it found that the Kriplanis’ arrangement bore the characteristics of an investment, whereas the appellants had executed a registered Agreement for Sale, arranged housing finance and paid the contractual consideration for the identified flat. The Tribunal held that intention to obtain possession of a dwelling unit was central to determining genuine homebuyer status. Consequently, the appellants’ claim deserved recognition as a residential allotment rather than being rejected in favour of an earlier unregistered reservation arrangement containing assured-return features.
6. Category A entitlement, delayed claims and judicial precedents protecting recorded homebuyers: The Tribunal examined the classification of homebuyers under the approved resolution plan. Category A covered payments towards flats with valid commencement certificates and approvals supported by registered agreements, whereas Category B addressed certain claims supported by verified allotment letters and other specified circumstances. Category C dealt with units affected by different approval-related deficiencies. The appellants’ registered Agreement for Sale and payment records brought their case within Category A. The NCLAT held that the appellants should have been recognised in that category and that the failure to do so resulted from inadequate due diligence by the RP and successful resolution applicant. The Tribunal also accepted that the appellants’ age, medical difficulties, the COVID-19 period and the absence of proof of communication concerning CIRP were relevant to assessing the delay. It observed that the claim was submitted before approval of the plan by the Adjudicating Authority, and the appellants’ application remained pending when approval was granted. The NCLAT relied on its earlier decision concerning Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd., where homebuyers holding registered documents and whose claims were reflected in the corporate debtor’s records were directed to receive treatment equivalent to other recognised allottees. It also applied Puneet Kaur Vs K.V. Developers Private Limited, which recognised that homebuyer liabilities appearing in the corporate debtor’s records ought to be considered in the Information Memorandum and resolution plan even where the homebuyers had not filed claims within the prescribed period. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court decisions in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar Gupta and RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Mukul Kumar, observing that principles preventing surprise claims after resolution plan approval could not automatically defeat an identifiable, bona fide homebuyer whose registered allotment had been available to the RP throughout CIRP. It likewise rejected reliance on the clean-slate principle where the disputed entitlement was already documented in the corporate debtor’s records.
7. Final decision allowing the appeal and admitting the homebuyers’ claim: The NCLAT concluded that Rajkumar Jhawar and Shobha Jhawar were genuine homebuyers who had entered into a registered Agreement for Sale, paid the agreed consideration and acquired a contractual entitlement concerning Flat No. 1002. The information relating to their allotment had been available in the virtual data room, and the RP had failed to demonstrate that the appellants were informed of the CIRP despite the existence of identifiable records. Their claim was rejected solely on the ground of delay without adequate examination of the underlying documents. The Tribunal also considered it significant that the NCLT approved the resolution plan while the appellants’ application challenging rejection of their claim remained pending, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to obtain a determination of their rights before final approval. It held that excluding such genuine homebuyers while recognising an investor whose arrangement contained assured-return features would produce an inequitable and unfair resolution. The NCLAT further explained that the principles governing finality of approved resolution plans could not be used to justify an omission attributable to the RP’s failure to examine records already available during CIRP. In paragraph 70 of its judgment dated 30 June 2026, the Tribunal set aside the NCLT’s order dated 21 November 2024, allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants’ claim be admitted in Category A of the resolution plan as an addendum. Pending interlocutory applications were closed, and no order as to costs was made. The ruling reinforces the obligation of insolvency professionals and resolution applicants to account for genuine homebuyer entitlements recorded in the corporate debtor’s documents. It establishes, on the particular facts of the case, that delay in submitting a formal claim does not necessarily justify exclusion where the registered allotment, payments and relevant identity of the purchasers were already available in the records used to prepare the resolution plan.
Cases Discussed
- Mansi Brar Vs Shubham Jain & Anr. (Supreme Court). Relied upon for distinguishing genuine homebuyers from speculative investors. The Tribunal applied the principle that a person’s intention to obtain possession, rather than merely earn financial returns, is material to determining the true nature of a real estate allotment.
- Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court); (2019) 8 SCC 416. Discussed through the principles explained in Mansi Brar concerning speculative investors who enter real estate transactions primarily to secure refunds or profits instead of acquiring possession.
- Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Connected Homebuyer Appeals (NCLAT); Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 63 of 2024 and connected matters. Relied upon for protecting homebuyers whose registered allotments and payments were reflected in the corporate debtor’s records despite delayed submission of formal claims. The Tribunal found the present appellants similarly situated.
- Puneet Kaur Vs K.V. Developers Private Limited (NCLAT); 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 245. Relied upon for the principle that homebuyer claims reflected in the corporate debtor’s records should be included in the Information Memorandum and appropriately addressed in the resolution plan, even where the homebuyers have not submitted claims within the prescribed period.
- Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (Supreme Court); (2020) 8 SCC 531. Distinguished on the ground that the rule against unresolved claims arising after approval of a resolution plan could not be invoked to exclude a genuine homebuyer whose allotment was already reflected in the corporate debtor’s records.
- RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Mukul Kumar & Anr. (Supreme Court); (2023) 10 SCC 718. Distinguished because the present appellants’ registered allotment was already recorded in the corporate debtor’s documents, and the Tribunal found that their circumstances differed from those of a creditor who failed to act despite knowledge of CIRP.
- Punjab and Sind Bank Vs Frontline Corporation Ltd. (Supreme Court); 2023 SCC OnLine SC 470. Cited by the successful resolution applicant regarding finality of the resolution process and the need to prevent unresolved claims from disrupting implementation of an approved plan.
- Pralhad Hage Vs Shyam Srirur (NCLAT); 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 4114. Cited by the successful resolution applicant in support of rejecting belated claims and preserving the finality of insolvency proceedings.
- Calyx Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Ravindra N. Athawale (NCLAT); Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 522 of 2024. Cited by the successful resolution applicant concerning the restrictions on entertaining claims submitted after approval of a resolution plan.
- Ebix Singapore Private Limited Vs Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited (Supreme Court); (2022) 2 SCC 401. Cited in support of the binding character of an approved resolution plan and the limited scope for reopening or modifying the resolution process.
- Sneha Kore & Anr. Vs Arun Kapoor & Anr. (NCLAT); Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 2109 of 2024. Distinguished in considering the clean-slate principle and extinguishment of claims under Section 31 of the IBC. The Tribunal held that these principles could not justify overlooking an existing homebuyer entitlement documented in the corporate debtor’s records.
