O R D E R

20.05.2024: I.A. No. 3090 of 2024: This application is filed for seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order. The application is allowed subject to the condition that the Appellant shall file the certified copy of the impugned order within one month from the date of passing of this order.

I.A. No. 3091 of 2024: This application is filed for seeking exemption from filing typed copies, clear copies of dim/unclear and illegible documents as annexures. The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

I.A. No. 3089 of 2024: This application is filed for seeking condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal. At this stage, Deep Bisht, Adv. for R1 accepts notice in court and submits that he does not want to file any reply nor have any objection. Consequently, the application is allowed and the delay of 7 days is hereby condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 856 of 2024 This appeal arises from the order dated 23.01.2024, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (in short ‘Tribunal’) by which application bearing 6104 of 2023 filed by the present Appellant seeking a direction to the Resolution Professional to acknowledge or admit their claim and create its chart qua the flats being developed by the Corporate Debtor, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of this care are that M/s Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) was developing a project ‘Amadeus’ in Sector 143, Noida. It invited applications for allotment by sale of residential apartments.

3. It is alleged by the Appellant that two flat buyers, namely, Mr. Vikas Pandhi (alongwith Mr. Kewal Krishan Pandi and Mrs. Anu Pandhi) & Mr. Viond Kumar (alongwith Mrs. Preeti) approached it for availing the credit/financial facilities (loan) for purchasing units/flats in the aforesaid project. The Appellant has given a table in the memo of appeal to indicate the date of sanction letter, amount of loan sanctioned and amount disbursed. The said table is reproduced as under:-

4. It is alleged that loan agreements were executed between the Appellant as a lender and the flat buyers as a borrower. The loan was sanctioned to the borrower against the equitable mortgage created on their respective flats. The detail of flats / units secured in favour of the appellant by the flat buyers qua the said loan is also given in the memo of appeal which is also reproduced as under:-

5. It is further alleged that there was a Quadrapartite Agreement amongst Logix city Developers Pvt. ltd. (owner), Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (Developer), Mr. Vikas Pandhi and Anu Pandhi (Borrower) and India Infoline Housing Finance Limited (IIHFL)

(Appellant).

6. A similar agreement was also executed amongst the same party on 14.11.2016 pertaining to other flats owned by Vinod Kumar and Mrs. Preeti Singh.

7. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 28.02.2020, the NCLT, Delhi admitted CP (IB) – 1781/ND/2018 filed by one Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor which commenced the CIRP proceedings. Mr. Arun Jain was appointed as IRP but later on replaced by the present Respondent, namely, Mr. Shiv Nandan Sharma by order dated

28.02.2020.

8. It is alleged by the Appellant that vide email dated 17.08.2023, it filed a claim of Rs. 2,31,50,653.3/- in Form C with the Respondent but despite its various letters and reminders, the claim was not admitted, therefore, the Appellant filed I.A. No. 6104 of 2023 before the Tribunal praying for a direction to RP to acknowledge/admit their claim and create its chart qua the flats being developed by the CD.

9. The said application has been dismissed, therefore, the present appeal has been filed.

10. Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that since the homebuyers purchased the flats with the loan advanced by the Appellant and have also mortgaged the said units as a security, the Appellant is a secured creditor qua the mortgaged flats but the impugned order has extinguished the lawful rights of the