The Supreme Court held that a homebuyer’s claim, once verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional and reflected in the list of creditors, must be honoured as per the plan’s provisions for verified claims. It cannot be relegated to a residuary clause meant for belated or unverified claims, as this would misapply the approved resolution plan.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellants, residents of Bengaluru, booked an apartment in 2010 in the ‘IREO Rise (Gardenia)’ project developed by M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited. They executed an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement in 2011 and paid Rs. 57,56,684 out of the total consideration of Rs. 60,06,368. The Corporate Debtor failed to deliver possession by the agreed date of November 2013. The appellants initially filed a consumer complaint, which was disposed of after the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the developer in October 2018. The appellants submitted their claim in the CIRP, which was subsequently verified, admitted, and included in the list of financial creditors. However, despite the admission of their claim, the Successful Resolution Applicant, under the approved resolution plan, refused to hand over possession, treating the appellants as belated claimants entitled only to a 50% refund of their principal amount under Clause 18.4(xi) of the plan. The NCLT and NCLAT upheld this decision, leading the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending their verified claim entitled them to possession, not a reduced refund.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the appellants filing a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, which was disposed of following the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The appellants then participated in the CIRP by submitting their claim. Aggrieved by the denial of possession of their apartment under the approved resolution plan, they filed an application (I.A. No. 5579 of 2021) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The NCLT dismissed their application, holding their claim was belated and thus only entitled to a partial refund. This decision was affirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1365 of 2023. The appellants then invoked the civil appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the IBC, which culminated in the present judgment.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Rules: Tender Conditions Must Be Clear, Can’t Reject Bids on Unstated Requirements
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made pivotal observations on the legal status of verified claims under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It held that once a homebuyer’s claim is duly verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional and incorporated into the list of creditors, it acquires full legal recognition within the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Court emphasized that such a verified claim cannot be arbitrarily relegated to a residuary clause meant for belated or unverified claimants. It found that the appellants’ case squarely fell under the plan’s clauses providing for the handover of possession, not the clause offering a reduced refund. The Court concluded that disregarding an admitted claim and misapplying the resolution plan’s distinct categories would undermine the legislative framework and cause grave injustice to bona fide allottees.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the NCLAT and NCLT. It held that the appellants, being allottees with a duly verified and admitted claim reflected in the list of financial creditors, were entitled to the benefit of clauses in the resolution plan providing for possession of the apartment. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to execute the Conveyance Deed and hand over physical possession of the allotted apartment to the appellants within two months.
Case Details:
Case Title: Amit Nehra & Anr. Versus Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1086 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2025 Date of Judgement: September 09, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Download The Judgement Here