Authority: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Indore Bench, Court No. 1

Order Date: 13 July 2026

Case Overview

The application was filed by Sabar Singh Prabhakar and Rita Suryavanshi (the Applicants), who identified themselves as allottees/homebuyers of Unit No. 407, Premium Tower 1, in the project "Pinnacle 'D' Dreams" in Indore, developed by the Corporate Debtor, JSM Devcons Private Limited. They claimed to have paid the full sale consideration of Rs. 18,30,900. The Applicants were against Ms. Chaya Gupta (Erstwhile Resolution Professional), the Monitoring Committee of JSM Devcons, Devvrat Developers Private Limited (the Successful Resolution Applicant or SRA), and JSM Devcons Private Limited (the Corporate Debtor).

The Applicants sought to recall and set aside the NCLT's order dated 05.04.2024, which had approved the resolution plan for JSM Devcons. They argued they were unaware of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as they resided in Gwalior and Bhopal and only became aware of it recently. They contended that their details were intentionally suppressed and that the resolution plan was vitiated by material irregularities, including undervaluation of assets and discriminatory treatment of creditors.

The CIRP against JSM Devcons was initiated on 17.03.2022 (CP(IB)/56(MP)/2021). The public announcement (Form-G) was made, and the last date for claim submission was 14.04.2022. The resolution plan submitted by Devvrat Developers was approved by the Committee of Creditors and subsequently by the NCLT on 05.04.2024.

The Respondent SRA (Devvrat Developers) opposed the application, arguing it was not maintainable. They stated the CIRP had concluded, the plan was binding, and the Applicants never filed a claim during the process despite public announcements. The SRA emphasized that the plan covered 351 homebuyers, and entertaining belated claims would adversely affect these stakeholders and the plan's implementation.

Observation and Analysis

The Tribunal observed that the Applicants did not file any claim with the Resolution Professional during the entire CIRP period, despite the Form-G being published three times. It found the Applicants' reliance on a liberal approach to condoning delay (N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy) misplaced in the context of a time-bound insolvency process where third-party rights have crystallized.

The Tribunal distinguished the cases relied upon by the Applicants (Puneet Kaur and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority), noting that in those cases, the plan had not yet been approved by the Adjudicating Authority, whereas here, the plan was approved on 05.04.2024. It cited the Supreme Court's judgments in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel, RPS Infrastructure, and Ghanshyam Mishra to reaffirm that claims not part of an approved plan stand extinguished and cannot be reopened, upholding the principle of finality and a "clean slate."

The Tribunal also noted a similar case of another homebuyer, Anupam Jain (IA No. 393 of 2024), where the NCLAT had dismissed a belated claim, reinforcing that the resolution plan had attained finality.

The Tribunal found the Applicants' allegations regarding plan irregularities (undervaluation, SRA eligibility) to be unsubstantiated by concrete evidence and held that challenging the commercial wisdom of the CoC at this stage was not permissible.

Final Outcome

The application (IA No. 224 of 2026) was dismissed in limine as not maintainable. The NCLT held that the Applicants' claims, not submitted during the CIRP, stood extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan on 05.04.2024. Entertaining such a belated claim would disturb the finality of the process and adversely affect the implementation of the plan and the rights of other stakeholders.

Topics: Insolvency Resolution, Homebuyer Claims, NCLT Jurisdiction