Case Details
Case Name: IA(IBC)/56(CH)2026 In CP(IB) No.133/Chd/Chd/2022 (Admitted)
Parties: Anuj Goyal (Applicant) vs. Parminder Singh Bhullar (RP) & Satish Kumar Chugh (AR of Class of Creditors)
Court/Authority: National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Court-II), Chandigarh
Case/Order No.: IA(IBC)/56(CH)2026
Date of Order: 22.05.2026
Coram: Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Singh (Member Technical), Mr. K. Biswal (Member Judicial)
Period of Dispute: The application relates to events in 2025, nearly a year after CoC approval of the resolution plan on 24.11.2024.
Parties Involved
Petitioner/Applicant: Anuj Goyal, S/o Shri Ramesh Giyal, R/o A-4/4, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063
Respondent No. 1: Parminder Singh Bhullar, Resolution Professional for Sarv Awas Housing Bhiwadi Pvt. Ltd. (IBBI Registration No. - IBBI/IPA-002/IP-NOI 127/2021-2022/13700)
Respondent No. 2: Satish Kumar Chugh, Authorized Representative of Class of Creditors
Corporate Debtor: Sarv Awas Housing Bhiwandi Pvt. Ltd.
Original Allottee: Manoj Kumar Tripathi (allotted residential flat: Tower 1C, Flat No. 004, 1 BHK, 470 sq. ft.)
Issues / Allegations / Violations
- The Applicant, Anuj Goyal, claimed rights as a homebuyer through a Prospective Buyer Agreement dated 07.11.2025 with original allottee Manoj Kumar Tripathi.
- He sought direction to the RP to replace Mr. Tripathi's name with his own in the list of Homebuyers/Financial Creditors and grant him proportionate voting share in the Committee of Creditors.
- The RP challenged the maintainability of the application, alleging suppression of material facts and mala fide intent to delay/sabotage the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
- The RP submitted that the applicant had no locus standi as his Expression of Interest (EoI) was previously rejected on 03.09.2024 and he did not challenge this rejection.
- The RP argued that the assignment was executed on 07.11.2025, nearly a year after CoC approval of the resolution plan (24.11.2024), with intent to interfere with the CIRP.
Findings & Observations
- The Tribunal found substance in the RP's submission that the alleged assignment was executed with primary intent to interfere with and delay the CIRP rather than pursue bona fide homebuyer interests.
- The Tribunal noted that the original allottee, Mr. Manoj Kumar Tripathi, through his Authorized Representative, had already participated in CoC meetings and approved the resolution plan.
- The Tribunal observed that the applicant had previously submitted an Expression of Interest for submitting a resolution plan but was unsuccessful.
- The Tribunal concurred with the RP that a unilateral request for substitution cannot be entertained without joint submission by the original claimant and the assignee.
Final Ruling & Enforcement
- The Application IA(IBC)/56(CH)2026 was rejected and dismissed.
- The Tribunal found no substance in the application and disposed of the matter.
- The ruling maintains the current composition of the Committee of Creditors and does not allow the applicant to claim CoC membership or voting rights.