Authority: National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Court-I)

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

The application was filed by Mr. Jagdish Singh Tiwana under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The applicant sought two primary reliefs: (1) adjudication and declaration that the sum of Rs. 4,40,50,000/- together with interest @12% per annum till realization was due and payable by the Corporate Debtor (Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited), and (2) direction to the Resolution Professional (Mr. Mukesh Gupta) to admit the applicant's claim and include him in the list of creditors.

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Gupta Builders was initiated on 31 May 2022 by the NCLT in CP(IB) No. 237 of 2021, with Mr. Mukesh Gupta appointed as Resolution Professional. A public announcement was issued on 2 June 2022 inviting claims from creditors.

The applicant claimed ownership of land measuring 10 Kanals in Village Aujla, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), which was sold to the Corporate Debtor via conveyance deed dated 19 June 2020. The applicant alleged non-payment of the sale consideration despite the executed deed, and stated that post-dated cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor were dishonored upon presentation. Consequently, the applicant instituted Civil Suit No. CS/935/2022 before the Civil Court at Mohali seeking declaration that the sale deed was null and void due to non-payment. This suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on 28 July 2025.

After learning of the CIRP, the applicant submitted his claim as an operational creditor to the Resolution Professional via email on 21 August 2025, followed by a complete submission with documents on 16 November 2025. The applicant contended that despite this submission, the Resolution Professional failed to communicate any decision regarding admission or rejection of the claim.

The Resolution Professional raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application, noting that no application for condonation of delay had been filed and that the claim was time-barred as it was lodged after the Resolution Plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors through e-voting concluded on 25 April 2023 with 93.48% voting share.

The tribunal examined the applicant's explanations for the delay, which included lack of knowledge of the CIRP initiation, not being conversant with technical procedures under the Code, and pursuing civil remedies first. The applicant relied on judgments including Dr. Shankar Sawant v. Arun Kapoor and Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited to argue that bona fide delay should be condoned.

Final Outcome

The NCLT Chandigarh Bench dismissed the application (IA No. 214/2026). The tribunal held that the claim was submitted with an inordinate delay of over two years after the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors. Entertaining such a belated claim would unsettle the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors and defeat the time-bound insolvency resolution mechanism envisaged under the Code. The applicant's explanations were deemed insufficient to justify reopening the CIRP process at this advanced stage. The statutory timelines under the IBBI Regulations and the finality of the commercial wisdom of creditors were emphasized as paramount considerations.

Topics: Insolvency Claim, Delay Condonation, NCLT Order