NCLAT Rejects Appeal to Revive Belated Claim Post-Resolution Plan Approval Due to Contradictory Documents and Lack of Payment Proof [Read Order]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench at New Delhi, has dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a claim seeking recognition as a financial creditor in a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), holding that the appellant failed to establish any valid financial disbursement and had approached the tribunal with inconsistent and misleading assertions. By doing so, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Indore Bench.

The appeal was filed by Dr. Anupam Jain, regarding an order dated November 11, 2024, passed by the NCLT. The order dismissed his application seeking recognition as a financial creditor under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The appellant claimed rights over a residential flat allegedly transferred to him by the corporate debtor pursuant to an agreement to sell executed in 2016.

The appellant contended that the flat had originally been booked by his mother in 2009 and was later transferred in his favour with the consent of the corporate debtor. During the CIRP, the appellant filed a claim in Form CA before the interim resolution professional, asserting that only registration of the sale deed remained pending.

Although his name appeared in the list of claimants with zero voting rights, the appellant argued that his claim stood admitted and that he had participated in the committee of creditors. After approval of the resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicant, eviction proceedings were initiated against the appellant, prompting him to move applications before the NCLT seeking restoration of possession.

The NCLT dismissed the applications, holding that the appellant had failed to disclose material facts and had not established any financial disbursement to qualify as a financial creditor.

Before the NCLAT, the appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority had erred in rejecting his claim despite documentary evidence and relied upon previous decisions to establish that genuine homebuyers could not be denied relief due to technical lapses. On the other hand, the respondents opposed the appeal, alleging absence of proof of payment, contradictions in the appellant’s documents, and collusion with the erstwhile management of the corporate debtor.

After examining the material on record, the Appellate Tribunal, comprising Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Judicial Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member), held that the appellant had failed to prove any financial disbursement as required under Section 5(8)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal noted that the burden of establishing disbursement lay on the claimant and that mere production of an agreement to sell without supporting bank records or proof of payment was insufficient.

The NCLAT also observed that the resolution plan had been approved by the Adjudicating Authority on April 5, 2024, and had attained finality, and that reopening claims at a belated stage would be contrary to settled law and the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Ors., the Tribunal held that no “hydra-headed” claims could be entertained after approval of a resolution plan.

Concluding that the appellant had failed to establish any legal or factual basis for interference, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order of the NCLT.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates