Parag Gupta Vs Rahul Jindal (NCLT Chandigarh)
The Applicants filed an application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking to set aside the Resolution Professional’s methodology for admitting their claim. They sought re-computation of the refund by appropriating ₹40,00,000 first towards interest instead of principal and also requested admission of delay possession charges.
The Applicants stated that the Corporate Debtor entered CIRP on 12.01.2024 and they filed their claim in Form CA on 04.03.2024 relating to Unit No. P-603. They had paid ₹42,89,820 and had received a partial refund of ₹40,00,000 between 03.08.2019 and 20.01.2020 pursuant to a Permanent Lok Adalat order dated 16.08.2017. They contended that the Resolution Professional wrongly adjusted the refund against principal instead of interest, relied on judicial precedents regarding appropriation of payments, and also alleged that delay possession charges were not admitted.
The Resolution Professional submitted that the Applicants’ claim of ₹1,35,62,303 was examined after obtaining legal opinion. The admitted claim comprised ₹2,89,820 towards principal and ₹30,37,267 towards interest, totalling ₹33,27,087. Interest was computed at 8% per annum under Regulation 16A(7) of the CIRP Regulations up to the dates of refund. The Respondent contended that only amounts due and outstanding on the insolvency commencement date could be admitted, that the refund could not be appropriated towards interest, and that a different approach would artificially inflate the claim and affect equitable treatment of similarly placed homebuyers.
