L & L Partners Litigation Vs Jalesh Kumar Grover, RP of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Ltd. - This Tribunal in 'Puneet Kaur' (supra) had observed that when records of the corporate debtor reflect the payments made by homebuyer to the corporate debtor, it is the obligation of the RP to collate such claims irrespective of the fact whether claim has been filed by the homebuyer or not.

 NCLAT (2026.04.23)  in L & L Partners Litigation Vs Jalesh Kumar Grover, RP of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Ltd.  [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1944 of 2025] held that;-

• Learned counsel for the RP submits that there being no disbursement by the appellant in favour of the corporate debtor, appellant's claim is not a financial debt. Learned counsel for the RP has placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1659/2024] in the matter of 'M/s. Propertree Real Estate Solutions Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'A. Viswanadha Sarma, Resolution Professional Sunibera Developers Pvt. Ltd.'.

• This Tribunal in 'Puneet Kaur' (supra) had observed that when records of the corporate debtor reflect the payments made by homebuyer to the corporate debtor, it is the obligation of the RP to collate such claims irrespective of the fact whether claim has been filed by the homebuyer or not.

• The mere fact that the adjudicating authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel [Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 :(2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443] , the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC.

• Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'RPS Infrastructure Ltd.' (supra) was also case where claim of a commercial entity was under consideration. Appellant is a legal firm which cannot place on the same footing as homebuyers of a residential unit, whose case was under consideration in 'Puneet Kaur' (supra).

• In yet other words, the essential element of disbursal, and that too against the consideration for time value of money, needs to be found in the genesis of any debt before it may be treated as "financial debt" within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code. This debt may be of any nature but a part of it is always required to be carrying, or corresponding to, or at least having some traces of disbursal against consideration for the time value of money."

• Amount raised from allottees under Real Estate Project has been deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of borrowing. Thus, when an amount is raised from allottees by a Real Estate Builder, the said amount becomes financial debt. Present is not a case where any disbursement was made by the appellant in favour of the corporate debtor. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 46 of 'Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited' (supra), as above, the claim of the appellant is not covered under the definition of a financial debt.

Excerpts of the order;

This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court V, Division Bench) dismissing the I.A. No.1439/2025 in CP (IB) No. 995/PB/2020 filed by the appellant.

# 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal are:

i. The appellant is a legal firm rendering legal services to the Company M/s. AKME Projects Limited. M/s. Akme Projects Limited has obtained financial facilities amounting to Rs.63 crore from the Yes Bank. Account of AKME Projects Limited was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by Yes Bank. AKME Projects Limited has mortgaged its land admeasuring 9.856 acres.

ii. Appellant claims that AKME Projects Limited in its Project AKME Raga Limited allotted 3 flats to the appellant on 09.03.2015 in lieu of appellant's professional legal fee.

iii. Yes Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to M/s. AKME Projects Limited on 23.09.2024.

iv. The Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, Haryana for taking possession of the asset/property.

v. In the application which was filed by the Yes Bank, AKME Projects Limited appeared before the District Magistrate and filed the reply. It was pleaded that auction process by the Bank will adversely affect the rights of third parties.

vi. The AKME Projects Limited itself annexed the list of 221 allottees in its reply. The District Magistrate passed an order on 10.11.2025, observing that secured creditors is entitled to take possession of the assets.

vii. In the SARFAESI proceedings, the assets of the AKME Projects Limited was auctioned in favour of corporate debtor - Grandstar Reality Pvt. Ltd. A sale certificate was issued in favour of Grandstar Reality Pvt. Ltd. dated 19.07.2016. Along with the sale certificate, a list of encumbrances was also attached as Annexure 1, which contained the list of 221 allottees. Sale of the schedule property was made free from all encumbrances except flats allotted to respective allottees as per list attached as Annexure 1.

viii. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor commenced on 26.09.2023 in C.P. (IB) No.995/PB/2020. Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) issued a public announcement in 'Form-A' inviting claim till 10.10.2023. Insolvency proceedings were challenged by suspended director, which challenge was dismissed, the date for submitting claim was extended till 26.05.2024. IRP issued Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) on 10.06.2024.

ix. Resolution plans were considered and in the 15th CoC Meeting held on 15.11.2024, the resolution plan was approved. On 29.11.2024, the Resolution Professional (RP) filed application for approval of the resolution plan before the NCLT.

x. The appellant filed its claim before the RP on 09.01.2025. In the claim, appellant claims to be allottee of 3 units. RP has sent a reply on 13.02.2025 refusing to admit the claim. RP informed that since the appellant claims allotment of flat in exchange of legal counsel fee, claim was not secured by the Yes Bank and does not find mention in the order dated 10.11.2015 passed by District Magistrate, Gurgaon. xi. RP advised the appellant to file claim in the CIRP of AKME Projects Limited. Appellant after rejection of its claim has filed the I.A.1439/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim and direction to RP to admit the claim. The said application came to be heard and rejected by the impugned order, aggrieved by which order, this appeal has been filed.

# 3. We have heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. Sudhir Makkar appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as learned counsel Mr. Abhishek Anand appearing on behalf of the RP.

# 4. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. Sudhir Makkar appearing for the appellant submits that appellant has appropriately explained the delay in filing the claim in its application which has not been considered. It is submitted that the appellant's firm stood dissolved on 15.07.2022 and Arbitration Proceedings is going on and there was no authorised person to take steps, due to which the delay was caused in filing the claim. It is submitted that adjudicating authority committed error in not condoning the delay in filing the claim and further adjudicating authority has erroneously distinguished the judgment of this Tribunal in 'Puneet Kaur' Vs. 'K.V. Developers Private Limited & Ors.', reported in [2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 245]. It is submitted that order passed by District Magistrate, Gurgaon on 10.11.2025 did not contain any list of 221 allottees. It is submitted that notice of sale was "as is C where is", "as is what is" and "whatever is basis", hence the right of the appellant who was allotted units by AKME Projects Limited was fully protected. The corporate debtor took the assets "as is where is basis", hence it was bound to discharge the liability of the appellant. It is submitted that AKME Projects Limited has issued the allotment letters and has also entered into Flat Buyers Agreement in March, 2015. Appellant's claim has wrongly been rejected. RP committed error in not accepting the claim. The list shared by RP forming part of District Magistrate order was manipulated list. Rejection of the claim by the RP deserve to be set aside.

# 5. Learned counsel for the RP refuting the submissions of the appellant submits that RP's email 13.02.2025 rejecting the claim of the appellant gives the detail reason for not accepting the claim apart from claim having been filed with delay, after approval of the resolution plan, claim could not have been accepted. In the sale certificate which was issued in favour of the corporate debtor the list of 221 allottees was mentioned, hence the corporate debtor has obligation with regard to 221 allottees, whose claim was given by the Yes Bank in its application filed before the District Magistrate. Learned counsel for the RP submits that in the affidavit filed in this appeal, RP has filed the copy of the entire record of the proceedings before the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, which contains all documents which are part of the proceedings including the sale certificate which contains a list of 221 allottees. Name of the appellant is not mentioned in the list of 221 allottees, hence the claim of the appellant does not deserve acceptance. It is further submitted that claim of allotment by the appellant is in lieu of legal fee payable by AKME Projects Limited. Learned counsel for the RP submits that there being no disbursement by the appellant in favour of the corporate debtor, appellant's claim is not a financial debt. Learned counsel for the RP has placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1659/2024] in the matter of 'M/s. Propertree Real Estate Solutions Pvt. Ltd.' Vs. 'A. Viswanadha Sarma, Resolution Professional Sunibera Developers Pvt. Ltd.'.

# 6. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

# 7. From the facts which has been brought on the record it is clear that claim was filed by the appellant vide letter dated 08.01.2025 claiming the allotment from AKME Projects Limited of 3 units G-601, G-701 & G-801 in AKME Raga total consideration for allotment is Rs.2,44,08,565/- which allotment was towards adjustment of bills of the appellant firm towards legal fee. The RP after receiving of the claim sent his reply by email 13.02.2025, which has been brought on the record by appellant itself at Page 354 to 356 of the appeal paper book. Claim was not admitted both on the ground of filing delay as well as on merits. The reply of the RP mentioned that name of the appellant is not included in the list of 221 allottees which are part of the order of District Magistrate dated 10.11.2025. CIRP was initiated by the homebuyers for not honouring the liabilities as per District Magistrate order dated 10.11.2025, hence the claim of the appellant cannot be dealt with in the CIRP of the corporate debtor.

# 8. Coming to the submission of the appellant that adjudicating authority committed error in not condoning the delay, we need to notice the reasons given by adjudicating authority in not accepting the claim of the appellant. Reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in 'Puneet Kaur' (supra) was also considered. Adjudicating authority observed that judgment of 'Puneet Kaur' (supra) was with respect to plight of the poor homebuyers and cannot be taken benefit by firm as the appellant. It was also noticed by the adjudicating authority that plan has already been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and is under consideration before the adjudicating authority. This Tribunal in 'Puneet Kaur' (supra) had observed that when records of the corporate debtor reflect the payments made by homebuyer to the corporate debtor, it is the obligation of the RP to collate such claims irrespective of the fact whether claim has been filed by the homebuyer or not. The present is a case where adjudicating authority has returned a finding that claim of the appellant was not reflected in the record of the corporate debtor, appellant thus cannot claim any benefit of the judgement of 'Puneet Kaur' (supra) in the facts of the present case.

# 9. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'RPS Infrastructure Ltd.' Vs. 'Mukul Kumar & Anr.' reported in [(2023) 10 SCC 718], was relied, in which judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 21 to 24 laid down following:

• "24. We have thus come to the conclusion that Nclat's impugned judgment [Mukul Kumar v. RPS Infrastructure Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 648] cannot be faulted to reopen the chapter at the behest of the appellant. We find it difficult to unleash the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the resolution applicant.

• 23. The mere fact that the adjudicating authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel [Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 :(2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443] , the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC.

• 22. Section 15 IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers. This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant. In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party.

• 21. The second question is whether the delay in the filing of claim by the appellant ought to have been condoned by Respondent 1. The IBC is a time bound process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which the time can be increased. The question is whether the present case would fall within those parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of 287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the corporate debtor is an undoubted fact. We believe that the appellant ought to have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid circumstances to find out whether the corporate debtor was undergoing CIRP. The appellant has been deficient on this aspect. The result, of course, is that the appellant to an extent has been left high and dry."

# 10. The reasons given by the adjudicating authority in refusing to condone the delay in filing the claim by the appellant a legal firm cannot be said to arbitrary or without any basis. Admittedly, the resolution plan was approved by the CoC much before filing of the claim by the appellant and plan is pending consideration before the adjudicating authority. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'RPS Infrastructure Ltd.' (supra) was also case where claim of a commercial entity was under consideration. Appellant is a legal firm which cannot place on the same footing as homebuyers of a residential unit, whose case was under consideration in 'Puneet Kaur' (supra).

# 11. We thus are of the view that no error has been committed by the adjudicating authority in refusing to condone the delay in filing the claim by the appellant, resolution plan having already approved and pending consideration before the adjudicating authority.

# 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the order of District Magistrate which is relied by the respondent did not contain any list of the homebuyers (220 in numbers). He submits that there being no list of homebuyers in the order of the District Magistrate benefit ought to have been extended to all homebuyers who were allotted units in the AKME Projects. Even if the submission of the appellant is accepted that order of District Magistrate did not contain any list of 220 homebuyers, sale certificate which was issued in pursuance of auction sale in favour of the corporate debtor under SARFAESI Act, 2002 is part of record which sale certificate clearly refers to the list of 220 homebuyers which was attached as Annexure 1 to the sale certificate. Order of the District Magistrate was an order to take possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 by the secured creditors. Respondents in their affidavit has brought the entire records of the proceedings under Section 13(4). It has been noticed that in the reply which was filed by AKME Projects, list of homebuyers was also annexed. It is thus undisputed fact that encumbrances of 220 homebuyers was noticed in the sale certificate. Admittedly the name of the appellant does not figure in the list of 220 homebuyers.

# 13. Learned counsel for the parties have also addressed submission on the merits of admissibility of the claim of the appellant, hence we proceed to examine the respective contentions. From the facts which have been brought on the record, it is clear that appellant's claim is allotment of units by AKME Projects Ltd. in lieu of legal fee which was payable by AKME Projects Limited. Yes Bank who had security with respect to the loan sanctioned to the AKME Projects Limited enforced its securities, under which the Grandstar Reality Pvt. Ltd., the corporate debtor has purchased the assets. Sale certificate is part of the record. It is useful to notice sale certificate Annexure A-4 to the affidavit of respondent:

• "SALE CERTIFICATE (For Immovable Property) Under Rule 9(6) Whereas, the undersigned Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Sant Ram aged 41 years being the Authorized Officer of YES Bank Ltd under Securitisation and-Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 13 read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) rules, 2002 sold on behalf of the YES Bank Ltd in favour of M/s Grandstar Realty Pvt. Ltd. having registered office at H-65, Connaught Circus, New Delhi- 110001, the immovable property shown in the schedule below secured in favour of YES Bank Ltd by M/s Akme Projects Ltd, having registered Office at B-1/E-3, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi 110044 towards the financial facilities offered by YES Bank Ltd. The undersigned acknowledges the receipt of INR. 40.75 Crore/- (Rupees Forty Crores Seventy Five Lakhs only) being. the sale price in full as the highest bid amount in the auction and handed over the delivery and possession of the scheduled property. The sale of the scheduled property was made free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor listed below on deposit of the money demanded by the undersigned.

• Description of the Immovable property All that part.and parcel of the property in Village Lakhnaula, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana measuring 9.856 acres out of total 10.881 acres falling under Rect. No. and Killa No. mentioned as under:* RECT. NO. KILLA NO. AREA IN KANAL-MARLA 45 21/2 2-14 50 1 8-0 2/1 3-16 45 22/1 2-0 22/1 4-4 22/2 3-16 21/3 3-6 11 8-0 46 6/2 3-16 15/2 3-0 16/1 3-0 25/2/2 0-6 45 1/3 1-11 10/1 5-8 10/2/2 2-11 12/1 MIN 3-18 19 MIN 6-2 2/2 5-13 9/1 2-16 9/2 5-4 20 8-0 TOTAL 87 Kanal 01 Marla i.e, 10.881 Acres Covered under Doc. No. 2768 dated 23.11.2013 registered before Sub Registrar Office, Manesar, Haryana List of encumbrances

• 1. Nil except flats allotted to respective allottees as per list attached as Annexure-1.

• Date: 19 .07.2016 (Authorized Officer) Place: Delhi YES Bank Ltd.

• * The possession of Flat No. F-1702 was not taken in compliance of order as described in sale confirmation letter."

# 14. The sale certificate contains a list of encumbrances which uses the expression "except flats allotted to respective allottee as per list attached as Annexure 1". Annexure 1 attached to the sale certificate is the list of 220 allottees. It is undisputed that name of the appellant is not shown in the said list as the allottee. The submission of the appellant that since sale was "as is where is basis", the corporate debtor was obliged to discharge all its liabilities against the allottees. When there is a list of allottees totalling 220, which is part of the sale certificate in which list the name of the appellant is not there, we are not persuaded to accept the submission that there was any liability on the corporate debtor towards the appellant.

# 15. RP in its email dated 13.02.2025 has given the detailed reply for not accepting the claim of the appellant. In the email dated 13.02.2025 with regard to status of claim by the appellant, following has been mentioned by the RP:

• "Status of claim submitted by you Further as mentioned in the claim form submitted by you, flats were allotted to you on discounted price in exchange of legal counsel fee bills for legal services provided by you to Akme Projects limited. Therefore, your claim for the flats claimed was not secured by Yes Bank and vide DM order dated 10.11.2015 were never made part of assets/ estate of the Corporate Debtor (GRPL). Since the CIRP is initiated by Home Buyers for not honoring the liabilities as per district magistrate order dated 10.11.2015, therefore, your claim cannot be dealt in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor (GRPL )and the same is not liable to be admitted in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor (GRPL).

• Suggested Action However, your claim can be addressed in the CIRP of Akme Projects Ltd., which is also under process, stayed earlier and now an application for extension of CIRP period is pending with Hon'ble NCLAT. You are therefore requested to forward your claim to the following email id of Akme Projects Ltd., if the same was not filed earlier; ip.akmeprojects@gmail.com"

# 16. We thus do not find any substance in the submission of the appellant that claim of the appellant was also entitled to be accepted as obligation of the corporate debtor.

# 17. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised one more submission to support his case. It is submitted that allotment which is claimed by the appellant is in lieu of legal fee which was to be received from AKME Projects Limited and AKME Projects Limited has made allotment to the appellant in lieu of legal fee, no disbursement was made by the appellant in favour of the corporate debtor. It is submitted that appellant is not a financial creditor. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in 'M/s. Propertree Real Estate Solutions Pvt. Ltd.' (supra), where this Tribunal in paragraph 37 laid down following:

• "37. A significant aspect of the matter which may also be highlighted is that for the Builder Buyer Agreement executed allegedly for allotment of two flats nothing was paid by the appellant and only the due amount of brokerage has been shown as outstanding in MoU of 25.11.2021 as amended by MoU dated 03.02.2022 as consideration of these two flats. Thus no money in fact, was paid or disbursed by the appellant to the CD as a consideration of the two flats stated to be allotted under the agreement dated 25.11.2021 as amended on 03.02.2022. Thus it is a case where absolutely no disbursement of amount, which may have commercial effect of borrowing and there appears no raising of any amount from alleged allottee (appellants)."

# 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court has occasion to consider the definition of the financial creditor given in Section 5(8) of the IBC. Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that disbursement for time value of money is pre-condition for accepting any debt as a financial debt. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited' Vs. 'Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors.' reported in [(2020) 8 SCC 401], where in paragraph 46, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following:

• "46. Applying the aforementioned fundamental principles to the definition occurring in Section 5(8) of the Code, we have not an iota of doubt that for a debt to become "financial debt" for the purpose of Part II of the Code, the basic elements are that it ought to be a disbursal against the consideration for time value of money. It may include any of the methods for raising money or incurring liability by the modes prescribed in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 5(8); it may also include any derivative transaction or counter-indemnity obligation as per clauses (g) and (h) of Section 5(8); and it may also be the amount of any liability in respect of any of the guarantee or indemnity for any of the items referred to in clauses (a) to (h). The requirement of existence of a debt, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money, in our view, remains an essential part even in respect of any of the transactions/dealings stated in clauses (a) to (i) of Section 5(8), even if it is not necessarily stated therein. In any case, the definition, by its very frame, cannot be read so expansive, rather infinitely wide, that the root requirements of "disbursement" against "the consideration for the time value of money" could be forsaken in the manner that any transaction could stand alone to become a financial debt. In other words, any of the transactions stated in the said clauses (a) to

• (i) of Section 5(8) would be falling within the ambit of "financial debt" only if it carries the essential elements stated in the principal clause or at least has the features which could be traced to such essential elements in the principal clause. In yet other words, the essential element of disbursal, and that too against the consideration for time value of money, needs to be found in the genesis of any debt before it may be treated as "financial debt" within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code. This debt may be of any nature but a part of it is always required to be carrying, or corresponding to, or at least having some traces of disbursal against consideration for the time value of money."

# 19. By explanation added in Section 5(8) of the Code by Second Amendment Act, 2018, any amount raised from an allottee under a Real Estate Project has been deemed to be an amount having commercial effect of borrowing. The explanation is as follows:

• "Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-clause,-

• (i) any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing; and

• (ii) the expressions, "allottee" and "real estate project" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (d) and (zn) of section 2 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016;"

# 20. Amount raised from allottees under Real Estate Project has been deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of borrowing. Thus, when an amount is raised from allottees by a Real Estate Builder, the said amount becomes financial debt. Present is not a case where any disbursement was made by the appellant in favour of the corporate debtor. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 46 of 'Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited' (supra), as above, the claim of the appellant is not covered under the definition of a financial debt.

# 21. We thus do not find any merit in the present appeal filed by the appellant. The rejection of the claim of the appellant cannot be faulted. Appeal is dismissed.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. Alka Ramanlal Gandhi & Ors. Vs. MR. Atul Tansukhlal Mehta - In our opinion, the comparative reach of other newspapers is not relevant for the purpose of compliance under the CIRP Regulations. What matters is whether the publications possess adequate circulation in terms of both the number of copies and geographical coverage within the area.

 NCLT Mumbai (2026.06.22) in Mrs. Alka Ramanlal Gandhi & Ors. Vs. MR. Atul Tansukhlal Mehta [I.A No. 2068 of 2025 & Ors. in Company Petition (IB) No. 204 of 2021] held that;

• Moreover, the proviso to Regulation 6A clearly stipulates that where it is not possible to send a communication to creditors, the public announcement made under Regulation 6 shall be deemed to be communicated to such creditors. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the Applicant has failed in his duty to send individual notices to the creditors as per Regulation 6A of CIRP Regulations.

• In our opinion, the comparative reach of other newspapers is not relevant for the purpose of compliance under the CIRP Regulations. What matters is whether the publications possess adequate circulation in terms of both the number of copies and geographical coverage within the area. The fact that 200 homebuyers have filed their claims in response to the publication made by the Respondent indicates that the publication effectively reached a broad audience in the locality. Consequently, the order in All India Kissan Sabha (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

• The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel, the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC.

Excerpts of the Order;

# 1. The following Interlocutory Applications (I.As) have been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code/IBC), seeking directions to Mr. Atul Tansukhlal Mehta, Resolution Professional of Calyx Lenora Realty LLP (Corporate Debtor), to condone the delay in filing their claims and admit their respective claims.

Interlocutory Application No.	Applicant	No. of days (Delay)	Claim Amount (Rs.)
I.A No. 2068 of 2025	ALKA RAMANLAL GANDHI (Allottee)	523	55,56,096
I.A No. 2106 of 2025	VIDYA RAJESH MOHITE (Allottee)	523	19,63,739
I.A No. 2604 of 2025	ATUL RMC (Operational creditor)	598	15,37,243
I.A No. 2956 of 2025	SOMNATH RADHAKISAN AROTE (Allottee)	618	18,34,070
I.A No. 3199 of 2025	MEGHALI PRAMOD PAWAR (Allottee)	520	33,82,499

# 2. Brief Facts

2.1 On an application filed under Section 9 of the Code, the Corporate Debtor was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) vide order dated 06.06.2023. The Respondent, Mr. Atul Tansukhlal Mehta, was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and later confirmed as the Resolution Professional (RP) by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

2.2 The Respondent made a Public Announcement in Form A on 16.06.2023, intimating the commencement of CIRP and calling upon the creditors of the Corporate Debtor to submit their claims in the relevant forms for collation and verification by him. The Respondent filed the list of creditors and report constituting the CoC with the Tribunal, and the same was taken on record vide order dated 03.08.2023 in 1A/3304/2023. Subsequently, the Respondent revised the list of creditors and the constitution of the CoC based on additional information and updates received up to 25.07.2024.

2.3 The CIRP period was extended from time to time (nearly 570 days), and a resolution plan was finally approved by the CoC at its 19th meeting held on 21.11.2024 with 100% voting. Thereafter, the Respondent filed IA. (Plan) No. 10 of 2025 on 29.01.2025, which is pending approval before this Tribunal. Meanwhile, many applications have been filed seeking condonation of the delay in filing the claims.

# 3. Submissions of Applicant in IA. No. 2068 of 2025

3.1 The Applicant states that he had provided advertisement and marketing services to the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor, in lieu of the services provided, allotted a Flat to the Applicant vide Agreement to Sale bearing No. 171/2021, registered with the Sub-Registrar's office No. 25, dated 08.01.2021.

3.2 As per Clause 5(c) (f) of the Agreement to Sale, the project was to be completed by 31.12.2025 with a grace period of 6 months. While the Applicant was expecting to receive her flat in 2025, she learned in December 2024 that the Corporate Debtor was undergoing CIRP. Immediately thereafter, the Applicant submitted her claim in the prescribed Form CA on 08.02.2025 for an outstanding amount of Rs. 55,56,096/-.

3.3 The Respondent vide his email dated 10.02.2025 rejected the claim submitted by the Applicant on the ground that a resolution plan has already been approved by CoC in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

3.4 The Applicant submits that she is a bona fide allottee/homebuyer and the transaction was not a barter of services but involved valuable consideration in the form of services and part monetary payments, duly acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor.

3.5 Thus, aggrieved by the response of the Respondent/RP, the Applicant has filed this IA seeking a remedy against the Respondent/RP.

# 4. Submissions of Applicants in I.A No. 2106 of 2025

4.1 The Applicants are stated to be allottees of flats in the real estate project being developed by the Corporate Debtor under the Agreement to Sale dated 08.01.2021. As per Clause 5 (c) (f) of the Agreement to Sale, the project was to be completed by 30.06.2023. However, there were incessant delays in the project's progress and completion.

4.2 The Applicants submit that they have paid a total sum of Rs. 9,94,329/- (Nine Lakh Ninety-Four Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-Nine Rupees) towards the purchase consideration. The Applicants further submit that they inadvertently missed the public announcement and did not file their claims on time.

4.3 It is submitted that the Applicants, upon being aware of the CIRP in December 2024, submitted their claim in the Form CA on 17.02.2025 for an outstanding amount of 19,63,739/- (Nineteen Lakh Sixty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty-Nine Rupees). However, the same was rejected by the Respondent/RP by email dated 10.02.2025 stating that the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC and is pending final approval before this Tribunal.

# 5. Submission of Applicant in I.A No. 2604 of 2025

5.1 The Applicant submits that he was supplying ready-mix concrete, which is used in construction work by the Corporate Debtor for the construction of the real estate project developed by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor ordered Ready mix concrete, RMC M25, from the Applicant by issuing Purchase Orders PO No. 1033 dated 09.09.2020, PO No. 1074 dated 29.09.2020, PO No. 1075 dated 29.09.2020, PO No. 1088 dated 02.10.2020, and PO No. 1100 dated 06.10.2020. Subsequently, the Applicant supplied the goods as per the POs and issued various invoices, viz., Tax Invoice No. RMC/0108/20-21 dated 29.09.2020 towards PO No. 1074 along with delivery challans, Tax Invoice bearing No. RMC 0118/20-21 dated 02.10.2020 towards P.O. No. 1088, along with delivery challans and tax invoice No. RMC/0120/20-21 dated 06.10.2020 towards P.O. No. 1100, along with delivery challans and tax invoice bearing No. RMC/0151/20-21 dated 23.10.2020, towards Purchase Order No. 1131, along with delivery challans demanding payment from the Corporate Debtor; however, the same have yet to be received by the Corporate Debtor.

5.2 The Applicant further submits that he was unaware of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, and there was a delay in filing the claim, also as the father of the partner of the partnership firm suffered from coronary artery disease and had to undergo CABG surgery, due to which he was advised rest, preventing him from managing financial and legal affairs.

5.3 The Applicant further submits that upon being aware of the CIRP in April 2025, the Applicant has promptly submitted their claim in Form B on 24.04.2025 for an outstanding amount of Rs. 15,37,243/- (Fifteen Lakh Thirty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Forty-Three Rupees); however, the same was rejected by the Respondent/RP vide email dated 25.04.2025 stating that the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC and is pending final approval before this Tribunal.

6. Submissions of Applicant in I.A No. 2956 of 2025

6.1 The Applicants are allottees of flats in the real estate project being developed by the Corporate Debtor under the registered Agreement to Sale dated 27.09.2019. As per Clause 5 (c) (f) of the Agreement to Sale, the project was to be completed by 31.12.2023. However, there were incessant delays in the project's progress and completion.

6.2 The Applicants submit that they paid a total sum of Rs. 9,65,300/- (Nine Lakh Sixty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Rupees) towards the purchase consideration. The Applicant further submits that they inadvertently missed the public announcement and did not file their claims on time. It is submitted that the Applicant’s father suffered from paralysis and expired in 2022, leaving the entire family in a state of shock, thereby preventing them from managing financial and legal affairs.

6.3 It is submitted that the Applicants, upon being aware of the CIRP in May 2025, submitted their claim in Form CA on 24.05.2025 for an outstanding amount of 18,34,070/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Thirty-Four Thousand Seventy Rupees). However, the same was rejected by the Respondent/RP by email dated 26.05.2025 stating that the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC and is pending final approval before this Tribunal.

# 7. Submissions of Applicants in I.A No. 3199 of 2025

7.1 The Applicants are allottees of the flats in the Project developed by the Corporate Debtor, under the registered Agreement to Sale dated 30.09.2020 No. 6536/2020 for Flat No. A-311 and No. 6535/2020 for Flat No. A-310.

7.2 The Applicants state that they paid a total sum of Rs. 17,80,263/- (Seventeen Lakh Eighty Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty-Three Rupees) towards the purchase consideration. As per Clause 5 (c) (f) of the Agreement to Sale, the Project was to be completed by 31.12.2022. However, there were incessant delays in the project's progress and completion.

7.3 The Applicants submit that they inadvertently missed the public announcement and did not file their claims on the stipulated time. Also, one of the Applicants, Mrs. Meghali Pawar, suffered a ligament tear in her knee in 2023-2024 and was medically advised to rest in bed for nearly a year, preventing her from managing financial and legal affairs.

7.4 The Applicants further submit that upon being aware of the CIRP in December 2024, they had promptly submitted their claim in the Form CA on 05.02.2025 for an outstanding amount of Rs. 33,82,499/- (Thirty-Three Lakh Eighty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-Nine Rupees).

7.5 It is further submitted that vide email dated 10.02.2025, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Applicants, stating that the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the CoC and is pending final approval before this Tribunal.

# 8. Contentions of Respondent/RP

8.1 The Respondent/ RP refuted the contentions made by the Applicants in the IAs.

8.2 It is submitted that Section 15 of the Code and Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations), mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers, which would constitute deemed knowledge. The plea that the parties waere not aware of the commencement of CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor is not a sufficient cause or substantial ground to condone delay. The Applicants cannot contest that they never received any email or postal communication from the Respondent regarding the initiation of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

8.3 The Respondent further contends that the Applicants have not shown sufficient cause or substantial ground to condone the delay in filing the claims. The claims of the Applicants suffer from the doctrine of laches, which is explained in the doctrine Vigiantibus Non Dormientibus Aequitas Subvenit, which means that “equity aids the vigilant, not the ones who sleep over their rights”.

8.4 It is further contended by the Respondent that as per Para 5(h) of the Agreement to Sale, the allottee shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate 1% above Highest Marginal Cost of Lending of the State Bank of India, per annum, on the amount paid by the Allottee/Purchaser from the agreed date of possession till actual delivery thereof by the Developer/Promoter to the Allottee/Purchaser. Furthermore, the interest component shall be levied only after 31.12.2025, i.e., the date of completion of the project as per Para 5(f) of the Agreement to Sale. Therefore, the amounts claimed by the Applicants are made-up figures, at their own whims and fancies.

8.5 The Respondent further submits that the Applicants have not revealed how they became aware of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, if they did not receive any communication regarding the initiation of insolvency process from the Respondent.

8.6 The Respondent submits that he was unable to verify the documents due to non-cooperation by the erstwhile directors of the Corporate Debtor. Although the Respondent/RP had filed I. A No. 5486 of 2023 under Section 19(2) of the Code, and was allowed by the Tribunal on 12.06.2024, the suspended directors have not complied with the order.

8.7 As far as I.A 2106 of 2025 is concerned, the records of the Corporate Debtor reveal payment of Rs. 8,65,620/- apart from Rs. 21,000/-. However, the Applicants have filed a claim for Rs.19,63,739/-.

8.8 As far as I.A No. 2604 of 2025, is concerned that the IA is silent on any agreement that permits levying interest of 18% p.a. as alleged by the Applicant, and due to the non-cooperation of the suspended board of the Corporate Debtor, the Respondent is unable to confirm the claim amount.

8.9 With respect to I.A No. 2956 of 2025, the Respondent submits that as per the books of the Corporate Debtor, the amount of Rs. 8,55,222/- (Eight Lakh Fifty-Five Thousand and Two Hundred and Twenty-Two Rupees) is reflected in the name of the Applicants.

8.10 The Respondent’s contentions in I.A 3199 of 2025 is that the Agreement to Sale dated 30.09.2020 mentions the sale consideration as Rs.15, 66,300/- (Fifteen Lakh Sixty-Six Thousand and Three Hundred Rupees) towards Flat No. A-311 and Rs. 14,35,500/- (Fourteen Lakh Thirty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Rupees) towards Flat No. A-310, for which the Applicants have not justified the non-payment of the balance consideration.

8.11 The Respondent submit that the plea of the respective Applicants regarding the medical condition of the Applicant and their related parties, due to which they were prevented from managing their affairs or legal actions, does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

# 9. Rejoinder by the Applicants for all IAs

The common points raised by the Applicants in the rejoinders filed are summarised hereunder:

9.1 Regulation 6A of the CIRP Regulations imposes an independent and statutory obligation upon the Respondent to send a copy of the public announcement individually to all known creditors by post or electronic means.

9.2 Furthermore, it is submitted that the maxim cited by the Respondent is not applicable in this context as the Applicants were not given an opportunity to be vigilant due to the breach of the Respondent’s obligations in compliance with the procedures provided in the Code and the CIRP Regulations made thereunder.

9.3 The Applicants further submit that the denial of a claim due to the IRP's failure to notify a known creditor is a violation of natural justice. Furthermore, due to the commencement of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, the construction on the real estate project has come to a standstill, with no updates regarding further progress to the Applicants. The other contents reiterate the Applications.

# 10. Analysis and Findings

10.1 We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicants and the Respondent/RP. We have also perused the records.

10.2 It is noted that the Applicants, with the exception of one Applicant, are allottees of a real estate project developed by the Corporate Debtor. The allottees are asserting their rights under the respective registered Agreements to Sale executed with the Corporate Debtor and payment of part of the sale consideration. The Respondent has cited the non-cooperation of the suspended management as a reason for the inability to verify the claims submitted by the Applicants. However, the Respondent does not dispute the existence of the Agreements to Sale, but instead contests the calculation of interest made by the Applicants. It is also noted that IA. No.2604/2025 has been filed by an operational creditor of the Corporate Debtor, who has failed to submit any agreement pertaining to the charging of interest. Given that all these IAs relate to the late submission of claims, particularly after the CoC approval of the resolution plan, the issues involved are largely similar. Consequently, with the consent of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicants, these IAs were heard together.

10.3 The undisputed facts relating to the IAs are that the CIRP for the Corporate Debtor commenced on 06.06.2023. The Respondent/RP issued the public announcement inviting claims on 16.06.2023, with the last date for claim submission on 28.06.2023. After extension of the CIRP period from time to time by nearly 570 days, the CoC approved the Resolution Plan at its meeting on 21.11.2024, with 100% voting in favour. Subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan by CoC, the Applicants in IA. No. 2068/2025; IA. No.2106/2025; IA. No. 2604/2025; IA. No. 2956/2025; and IA. No. 3199/2025, submitted their claims to the Respondent on 08.02.2025; 17.02.2025; 24.04.2025; 24.05.2025; and 05.02.2025, respectively. The delay in filing these claims exceeds 500 days from the cut-off date.

10.4 The Applicants have raised a contention regarding the public announcement published by the Respondent being defective and that the Respondent/RP has not complied with Regulation 6 and Regulation 6A of the CIRP Regulations. Further, it is contended that they never received any email or postal communication from the Respondent regarding the initiation of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. In support of the above argument, the Applicants have also relied on certain orders of the coordinate bench of NCLT.

10.5 Before dealing with the contention and those orders, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the CIRP Regulations:

• “6. Public announcement.

• (1) An insolvency professional shall make a public announcement immediately on his appointment as an interim resolution professional.

• Explanation- ‘Immediately’ means not later than three days from the date of his appointment.

• (2) The public announcement referred to in sub-regulation (1) shall:

• (a) be in Form A of the Schedule-I;

• (b) be published—

• (i) in one English and one regional language newspaper with wide circulation at the location of the registered office and principal office, if any, of the corporate debtor and any other location where in the opinion of the interim resolution professional, the corporate debtor conducts material business operations;

• (ii) on the website, if any, of the corporate debtor; and

• (iii) on the website, if any, designated by the Board for the purpose,

• (ba) state where claim forms can be downloaded or obtained from, as the case may be;

• (bb) offer choice of three insolvency professionals identified under regulation 4A to act as the authorised representative of creditors in each class; and

• (c) provide the last date for submission of proofs of claim, which shall be fourteen days from the date of appointment of the interim resolution professional.

• (3) The applicant shall bear the expenses of the public announcement which may be reimbursed by the committee to the extent it ratifies them.

• 6A. Communication to creditors.

• The interim resolution professional shall send a communication along with a copy of public announcement made under regulation 6, to all the creditors as per the last available books of accounts of the corporate debtor through post or electronic means wherever the information for communication is available.

• Provided that where it is not possible to send a communication to creditors, the public announcement made under regulation 6 shall be deemed to be the communicated to such creditors.”

10.6 It is submitted that Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations, contemplates paper publication in English and regional language newspapers with wide circulation at the location of the registered office and principal office, if any, of the corporate debtor and any other location where in the opinion of the interim resolution professional, the corporate debtor conducts material business operations. It is contended that the Respondent/IRP made the public announcement on 16.06.2023 only in Financial Express (English) and Loksatta (Marathi) newspapers, having limited circulation in Pune. In order to buttress the above argument, the Applicants have produced a copy of 67th Annual Report (Vol. II, 2022-2023), published by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Registrar of Newspapers for India, as per which Financial Express (English) and Loksatta (Marathi) have much lower circulation in Pune District than widely circulated newspapers like Times of India (English), Sakal (Marathi), and Lokmat (Marathi). . . . . 

Based on the above data, it is contended that the choice of Financial Express and Loksatta fails the statutory test of “wide circulation” under Regulation 6(2)(b), due to which the public announcement did not reach a substantial section of stakeholders.

10.7 On the contrary, the Respondent contends that Financial Express (English) and Loksatta (Marathi) are papers of repute and widely read. The circulation figures relied upon by the Applicants are based on data for the financial year 2022-2023, whereas the advertisement was released in June 2023. The RNI circulation report is not available for the FY 2023-2024 onwards; However, the circulation figures that were accessed from the public domain indicated varying figures as follows:

10.8 The Respondent also submits that, in addition to paper publication, wide publicity was given by placing the Public Announcement on the website of the IBBI. Additionally, printed copies of the Public Announcement were pasted at the site of the Corporate Debtor and handed over to the security personnel for distribution to all homebuyers who visit the site. More than 200 homebuyers have filed claims, of which 196 have been admitted.

10.9 In the case of All India Kissan Sabha & Others v. Vibha Agro Tech Limited [(2025) ibclaw.in 252 NCLT], the coordinate Bench of the NCLT at Hyderabad ordered fresh issue of public announcement in Form A. This directive was based on the observation that the prior paper publication was done only in Hyderabad editions of newspapers of small circulation (Economic Times and Nava Telangana) and was not issued at all locations where the corporate debtor conducted its material business (processing plants/factories). In the present case, there is no contest regarding the place of publication; rather, the focus lies on the paper's circulation within the area, specifically Pune. According to the data presented by the Applicants, the Financial Express (English) has a circulation of 9420 copies, while Loksatta (Marathi) has a daily circulation of 46,646 copies. In our opinion, the comparative reach of other newspapers is not relevant for the purpose of compliance under the CIRP Regulations. What matters is whether the publications possess adequate circulation in terms of both the number of copies and geographical coverage within the area. The fact that 200 homebuyers have filed their claims in response to the publication made by the Respondent indicates that the publication effectively reached a broad audience in the locality. Consequently, the order in All India Kissan Sabha (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

10.10 The Applicants also submit that Regulation 6A makes it mandatory for the IRP to send the announcement to all creditors listed in the last available books of account. It is alleged that the Respondent has failed to send individual communications under Regulation 6A to creditors whose details were available in the Corporate Debtor’s books. It is also contended that the Respondent has also not produced any compliance affidavit, proof of dispatch, or circulation data.

10.11 Conversely, the RP asserts that he was not in a position to give individual notices as he did not receive any books of accounts from the suspended directors. Furthermore, Regulation 6A clearly stipulates that the communication is to be sent as per the latest available books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, in the absence of such books, RP has no obligation to send the individual communication to the creditors.

10.12 We observe that the Respondent has filed IA. No. 5486/2023 under Section 19(2) of the Code seeking an order to direct suspended directors to provide necessary co-operation by providing information/documents to the IRP/RP. The Respondent categorically states that, despite an order being passed on 12.06.2024, the suspended directors have not complied with the directive. Moreover, the proviso to Regulation 6A clearly stipulates that where it is not possible to send a communication to creditors, the public announcement made under Regulation 6 shall be deemed to be communicated to such creditors. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the Applicant has failed in his duty to send individual notices to the creditors as per Regulation 6A of CIRP Regulations.

10.13 This brings us to the next contention of the parties regarding condonation of delay in filing the claims with the Respondent/RP. Admittedly, the Applicants have submitted their claims after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, that too with a delay of more than 500. The Applicants, however, submit that they were not aware of the initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, and immediately upon coming to know of the same, they have submitted their claims. Reasons such as the health of the Applicant or their immediate relative were shown as an additional ground for condonation of delay. It is further argued that the time limit specified in the Code is directory in nature and rejection of the claim on the ground of delay is unsustainable.

10.14 Per contra, the Respondent contends that the Applicants have failed to show sufficient grounds to condone the delay and that the Applicants were not at all vigilant. Hence, at a belated stage, they cannot seek condonation of delay to the prejudice of all other creditors, including the homebuyers.

10.15 As far as Applicants who are allottees in the project developed by the Corporate Debtor, we observe that the Agreements to sell were executed in the years 2020 and 2021, and the projects were to be completed between 2022 and 2025. Though the project completion was repeatedly delayed, the Applicants have not taken any steps to follow up on the progress. The project stopped long ago, and CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor was initiated on 06.06.2023. The CIRP process also underwent a long period of 570 days, and a resolution plan was finally approved by the CoC on 21.11.2024. During all these periods, the Applicants were not aware of the CIRP and filed the claims thereafter. This clearly shows that they were not vigilant on their rights.

10.16 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar & Anr. [(2023) ibclaw.in 102 SC] held as under:

• “19. The second question is whether the delay in the filing of claim by the appellant ought to have been condoned by respondent no. 1. The IBC is a time bound process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which the time can be increased. The question is whether the present case would fall within those parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of 287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the Corporate Debtor is an undoubted fact. We believe that the appellant ought to have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid circumstances to find out whether the Corporate Debtor was undergoing CIRP. The appellant has been deficient on this aspect. The result, of course, is that the appellant to an extent has been left high and dry.

• 20. Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers. This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant. In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party.

• 21. The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel, the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC.” (Emphasis added)

10.16 We may also notice the regulatory framework concerning the filing of claims. In accordance with Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations, creditors are required to submit claim with proof on or before the last date mentioned in the public announcement. If a creditor, fails to submit claim with proof within the time stipulated in the public announcement, the creditor may still submit his claim with proof to the interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as applicable, up to the date of issue of the issuance of request for resolution plans under regulation 36B or ninety days from the insolvency commencement date, whichever is later, provided the creditor provides reasons for delay in submitting the claim beyond the period of ninety days from the insolvency commencement. Furthermore, Sub-Regulation (1B) has been introduced with effect from 18.09.2023 to the effect that in the event that claims are received after the period specified under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12 but before seven days before the date of meeting of creditors for voting on the resolution plan or the initiation of liquidation, as the case may be, the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, shall verify all such claims and categorise them as acceptable or non-acceptable for collation. This clearly demonstrates that the statute has been very considerate of the late claims, while also emphasising that such considerations must not impede the resolution process of the corporate debtor. It is also a settled principle that the Tribunal cannot come to the rescue of those who are sleeping on their rights.

10.17 It is pertinent to note that the CoC comprises a financial creditor representing 58.45% voting and homebuyers representing 41.55%, which includes the admitted claims of 196 homebuyers. The Resolution Plan was also approved by 100% voting in favour. The successful resolution applicant cannot be suddenly confronted with fresh claims, as such developments would necessitate the initiation of a fresh CIRP. This would create uncertainty and hinder the fundamental objective of maintaining a timeline for resolving the distressed corporate debtor.

10.18 Upon careful consideration of the above, we are of the considered view that belated claims cannot be accepted to the detriment of the Resolution Plan that has already been approved by the CoC. Furthermore, the Applicants did not demonstrate vigilance and were not vigilant on their rights, and no special circumstances or non-percolation of information regarding the commencement of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor have been made out. Additionally, mere technical objections, without showing how it affected the spirit/intent of the Code, cannot be allowed to defeat the very objectives of the Code.

10.19 As a result, we find no merit in the Interim Applications and dismiss I.A. No. 2068 of 2025; I.A. No. 2106 of 2025; I.A. No. 2604 of 2025; I.A. No. 2956 of 2025; I.A. No. 3199 of 2025 In C.P(IB) No.204/MB/2021. No order as to costs.

----------------------------------------------