Radhey Sham Midha Vs Rahul Jindal (NCLT Chandigarh)
The Applicants filed an application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking directions to the Resolution Professional (RP) to admit their claim of ₹4,05,88,558 as a financial debt and include them as Financial Creditors in the Committee of Creditors (CoC). They contended that they had entered into an Apartment Buyers Agreement with the Corporate Debtor on 09.02.2013, paid ₹25,48,000 towards the purchase of a flat, and that the amount was acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor. They further alleged that the RP failed to issue individual communication under Regulation 6A of the CIRP Regulations after commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), resulting in delay in filing their claim. They submitted Form CA on 15.11.2024, which was rejected by the RP on 28.11.2024. They challenged the rejection as arbitrary and contrary to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the CIRP Regulations.
The RP opposed the application, stating that the Applicants had originally claimed only ₹25,48,000 in Form CA but sought admission of ₹4,05,88,558 in the present proceedings without supporting documents. The RP submitted that the claim was filed after the Committee of Creditors had approved the Resolution Plan on 28.10.2024 and, under Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations, no fresh claim could be verified or admitted after that stage. The RP also submitted that no direct payment from the Applicants to the Corporate Debtor was traceable in its books, that payments were routed through M/s Real Pro Assets Pvt. Ltd., and that the Applicants had failed to establish any direct financial debt payable by the Corporate Debtor.
