Case Overview

This application (I.A.(I.B.C) No.891 of 2025) was filed by M/s RealPro Assets Ltd., through its Director Sh. Radhey Sham, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). It was against Mr. Rahul Jindal, the Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor, Samar Estates Private Limited. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by the NCLT on 22 January 2024. The principal dispute was the RP's rejection of the Applicant's claim of Rs. 11,09,60,722. The Applicant contended it was a financial creditor (homebuyer) based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 01.01.2011 with the Corporate Debtor for the 'Ess Vee Apartments' project in Panchkula. It claimed 15 flats were allotted to it, but possession was never delivered. The Applicant stated it filed its claim on 12 February 2025 after becoming aware of the CIRP through an RP notice issued pursuant to a tribunal order dated 16 December 2024.

The RP's defense for rejecting the claim was multi-faceted. He argued the claim was filed belatedly, as the 14-day window for filing after the notice (26.12.2024) expired on 10.01.2025, well before the Applicant's submission. The RP contended the MoU appointed the Applicant as a 'Marketing Associate' or sales agent, not an allottee, and thus it did not qualify as a financial creditor under the IBC. He asserted that no Builder Buyer Agreement or other proof of allotment to the Applicant was provided. The RP further argued that the Applicant's self-maintained ledger was unreliable, as the Corporate Debtor's official books showed no outstanding payable to the Applicant and indicated the flats in question were already allotted to other homebuyers. A significant point of contention was the Applicant's claim of Rs. 53.85 lakhs in cash payments, which the RP stated were prohibited by the MoU and for which no proof (receipts, bank records) was provided despite requests on 14.08.2025 and 18.08.2025. The RP also alleged the Applicant's director had prior knowledge of the CIRP, having filed a personal claim earlier.

The tribunal's analysis focused on interpreting the MoU and evaluating the evidence. It found the MoU's terms (Clauses 6 & 7) clearly established a marketing/sales facilitation agreement, not an allotment, mandating all payments be made to the Corporate Debtor via banking channels and prohibiting cash acceptance. The tribunal noted the complete absence of a Builder Buyer Agreement, allotment letter, or any document typically evidencing a homebuyer's status. It found the Applicant's unilateral ledger account insufficient to prove a debt, especially as it was contradicted by the Corporate Debtor's records and the lack of proof for cash transactions. The tribunal agreed the claim was filed after the CIRP had substantially progressed and the resolution plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). It held that the RP's issuance of a claim notice did not constitute an admission of liability and that the RP was justified in rejecting a claim unsupported by credible evidence from the Corporate Debtor's records.

Final Outcome

The application was dismissed. The NCLT upheld the Resolution Professional's decision to reject RealPro Assets Ltd.'s claim of Rs. 11,09,60,722. The tribunal concluded the Applicant failed to establish it was a financial creditor (homebuyer) under the IBC or that any financial debt was payable by the Corporate Debtor, Samar Estates Pvt Ltd.

Topics: Insolvency Claim Adjudication, Real Estate Dispute, NCLT Order