Gaurav Jindal Vs Debashish Nanda (NCLAT Delhi)
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, has partly allowed an appeal filed by Gaurav Jindal, challenging an order dated June 10, 2024, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi. The Adjudicating Authority had rejected IA No. 2413 of 2024 filed by the Appellant, seeking to be treated as a homebuyer in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor.
The brief facts of the case reveal that the Appellant was allotted Flat No. C-103 on June 4, 2015, against a payment of ₹29 lakhs, which was disbursed by UCO Bank to the corporate debtor as a loan taken by the Appellant. Subsequently, on February 3, 2018, the Appellant requested the corporate debtor to cancel the allotment and clear the outstanding bank loan. Consequently, the bank initiated recovery proceedings against the Appellant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Appellant also filed a complaint with the UP Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) on March 2, 2019, which issued a decree against the corporate debtor on August 5, 2019, for the outstanding amount along with interest.
In 2020, the Appellant reached a settlement with the bank before the DRT, paying ₹17 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the dues. Following this, the bank withdrew its OA No. 617 of 2018. The CIRP against the corporate debtor commenced on March 22, 2021. The Appellant filed his claim in Form CA on April 6, 2021, including the RERA order, and later refiled it in Form C upon a query. The Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) was approved in 2021. Notably, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Vishal Chelani & Ors. vs. Debashis Nanda,” allowed an appeal by homebuyers who had obtained decrees from UP RERA but were not treated as homebuyers by the Resolution Professional, declaring them financial creditors. Following this Supreme Court judgment, the Appellant, Gaurav Jindal, filed IA No. 2413 of 2024, seeking a direction to the Respondent to accept his claim at par with other homebuyers. The Adjudicating Authority, however, rejected this application on June 10, 2024.
The Appellant’s counsel argued that his claim was wrongly accepted as an ‘unsecured financial creditor’ and that he was entitled to be treated as a homebuyer, benefiting from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Vishal Chelani case. The Resolution Professional, while refuting this, submitted that the Appellant’s unit was cancelled at his own request, and the fact of the settlement with the bank was not initially brought to their notice or the SRA’s attention. However, the Resolution Professional assured that the ₹17 lakhs paid by the Appellant to the bank would be paid to him from the amount reserved in the Resolution Plan, in the interest of justice. The counsel for the SRA supported the Adjudicating Authority’s impugned order.
After considering the submissions and perusing the record, the NCLAT noted that the Appellant had indeed settled his dues with the bank by paying ₹17 lakhs. While the Adjudicating Authority had acknowledged that ₹29 lakhs was reflected as payable by the Corporate Debtor in its books and directed the Resolution Professional to inform the bank, the NCLAT observed that the Appellant had already cleared these dues. Consequently, the NCLAT was of the view that the interest of justice would be served by directing the Respondent to make a payment of ₹17 lakhs to the Appellant, representing the amount he paid to the bank to settle the loan related to the cancelled unit. The NCLAT concluded that no further orders were required in the present circumstances. The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Respondent to make the payment of ₹17 lakhs to the Appellant within a period of 60 days from the date of the order.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
