Authority: National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh Bench, Court-I

Order Date: 11 June 2026

Case Overview

The application was filed by Radhey Sham Midha (69% share) and Sandeep Kumar Bhatla (31% share) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Rahul Jindal, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for M/s Samar Estates Pvt Ltd. The applicants sought directions for the RP to admit their claim of ₹4,05,88,558 as financial debt and include them in the Committee of Creditors (CoC), alleging the RP failed to issue individual communication as required under Regulation 6A of the CIRP Regulations.

The applicants contended they entered into an apartment buyers agreement with the corporate debtor on 09.02.2013 for Flat No. F-902 and paid ₹25,48,000, acknowledged by the corporate debtor on 02.06.2013. They claimed the RP violated statutory obligations by not sending individual notices, causing prejudice. Their Form CA claim submitted on 15.11.2024 was rejected by the RP on 28.11.2024 as belated.

The RP countered that the original claim was only ₹25,48,000 but was inflated to ₹4.06 crore without documentation. The claim was filed after the CoC approved the resolution plan on 28.10.2024, making it inadmissible under Regulation 13. The RP revealed that Mr. Radhey Sham is a director of M/s Real Pro Assets Pvt Ltd, a marketing entity that collected funds from homebuyers but failed to deposit them with the corporate debtor. Investigation showed no direct payments from the applicants to the corporate debtor's accounts, only through Real Pro Assets, which is under legal scrutiny in IA No. 1075 of 2024. The RP also argued the allotment was contractually cancelled on 02.09.2013 due to non-payment of the fifth installment of ₹39,20,500, leaving an outstanding balance of ₹13,72,500, as per the demand notice dated 02.06.2013 which warned of automatic cancellation under Clause 10 of the agreement.

The tribunal analyzed three key issues: (1) whether the RP complied with Regulation 6A notice requirements, (2) whether the amount qualifies as financial debt under Section 5(8)(f), and (3) whether the belated claim could be entertained after CoC plan approval.

On the first issue, the tribunal examined evidence from IA No. 1576 of 2025 which showed courier service attempts to the applicants on 14.02.2024 (Radhey Sham at serial number 66 marked delivered, Sandeep Kumar at serial number 139). The public announcement was published in Financial Express and Jansatta on 16.01.2024. The court found the RP complied with Regulations 6 and 6A.

On the second issue, the tribunal found the applicants defaulted on payments and the allotment was contractually cancelled in 2013, terminating their status as allottees long before CIRP initiation. Without subsisting rights, the amount cannot constitute financial debt under Section 5(8)(f).

On the third issue, the tribunal noted the CIRP commenced on 12.01.2024 and the resolution plan was approved by CoC on 28.10.2024. The claim filed on 15.11.2024 was after this approval, making it inadmissible under Regulation 13 which allows claims only up to seven days before the creditors' meeting for voting on the resolution plan.

Final Outcome

The application (I.A.(I.B.C) No. 46 of 2025) was dismissed. The tribunal upheld the RP's rejection of the claim, finding no fault in the RP's actions. The applicants are not recognized as financial creditors and will not be included in the CoC.

Topics: Insolvency Claim Admissibility, Real Estate Allotment, CIRP Regulations