Case Details
Case Name: IA(I.B.C)/582(CH)2025 in CP(IB) No.167/Chd/Hry/2020
Parties: Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. (Applicant) vs. Shyam Arora, Resolution Professional for SRS Real Estate Limited (Respondent)
Court/Authority: National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Court-II)
Order Date: 22 May 2026
Presiding Members: Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Member - Technical), Mr. Khetrabasi Biswal (Member - Judicial)
Underlying Matter: CP(IB) No.167/Chd/Hry/2020, initiated by LIC Housing Finance Limited against SRS Real Estate Limited
Period of Dispute: The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated on 22 December 2022. The claim in question was submitted on 19 February 2025.
Parties Involved
Petitioner/Applicant: Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. (ACRE), acting as trustee of ACRE-102-Trust, an Asset Reconstruction Company registered under Section 3 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Respondent: Shyam Arora, the Resolution Professional appointed for SRS Real Estate Limited.
Corporate Debtor: SRS Real Estate Limited.
Original Financial Creditor (in main matter): LIC Housing Finance Limited.
Original Lender: Samaan Capital Limited (formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited), which assigned the debt to Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, which subsequently assigned it to the Applicant.
Legal Representatives: Mr. Shivam Shorewala (for Applicant), Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Advocate (for Respondent).
Issues / Allegations / Violations
The Applicant, ACRE, filed an application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking directions for the Resolution Professional to accept its belated claim of ₹20,99,10,060 (Principal Amount along with interest and other charges) and classify it as a Financial Creditor.
The claim was rejected by the Resolution Professional on two grounds:
1. Delay in Submission: The claim was submitted on 19 February 2025, which was 775 days after the last date mentioned in the public announcement and 401 days after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved a Resolution Plan (12 January 2024).
2. Project-Specific CIRP: The CIRP against SRS Real Estate Limited was specifically confined by the NCLT to one project: 'SRS Royal Hills, Phase II, Sector 87, Faridabad'. The Applicant's claim was related to a loan originally extended for 'SRS Residency, Sector 88, Faridabad' and was for the Corporate Debtor as a whole, not the specific project under insolvency.
Findings & Observations
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and made the following key findings:
- The initiation order for CIRP (22.12.2022) and a subsequent NCLAT order (18.04.2023) had unequivocally confined the process to the SRS Royal Hills Phase II project.
- The loan documents and securities (mortgage of 76 units) held by the Applicant pertained to SRS Residency, Sector 88, Faridabad, not the project under CIRP. The Applicant failed to produce any document linking the loan to the SRS Royal Hills project.
- The public announcement for claims was duly made in widely circulated newspapers, constituting deemed communication to all stakeholders. Regulation 6A communication was only required for creditors pertaining to the specific project, which the Applicant was not.
- The proviso to Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations allows for a 90-day extension from the insolvency commencement date for claim submission. Regulations 13(1B) and 13(1C) allow for claims up to 7 days before the CoC meeting to vote on the resolution plan. The Applicant's claim was filed long after these deadlines and, critically, after the CoC had already approved a plan.
- Entertaining such a belated claim would unsettle the commercial decision of the CoC and defeat the time-bound framework of the IBC.
- The judgment in State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Limited was distinguished, as it dealt with the status of a statutory creditor in liquidation, not the admissibility of a delayed claim after CoC approval.
- The Tribunal found the judgment in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar & Anr. more applicable, which holds that fresh or belated claims cannot be entertained after CoC approval of a resolution plan.
Penalties / Settlements / Directions
The Application was dismissed.
No monetary penalties, disgorgement, or settlements were imposed. The Tribunal's direction was to uphold the Resolution Professional's decision to reject the claim. The financial consequence for the Applicant is the non-admission of its ₹20.99 crore claim in the ongoing CIRP of SRS Real Estate Limited, effectively excluding it from any potential distribution under the resolution plan.
Corrective Actions & Future Obligations
The order does not impose any specific corrective actions or future obligations on the parties. It reinforces the finality of the CoC's commercial decision and the adherence to statutory timelines within the IBC process. The Resolution Professional is directed to proceed with the resolution process based on the existing admitted claims.
Final Ruling & Enforcement
The National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, dismissed IA(I.B.C)/582(CH)2025. The ruling enforced the Resolution Professional's rejection of the claim. The final outcome is that the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC will proceed for consideration by the NCLT under Section 31(1) of the Code without including the claim of Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd.