NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI [Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in I.A. No. 603 (CH)/ 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 248/CHD/2019]

In the matter of:

RAJEEV KHURANA S/O RAM DHAN KHURANA R/O A-402, SAI BABA APARTMENTS, SECTOR-9 ROHINI, NORTHWEST DELHI- 110085 .… Appellant Versus SH. ARVIND KUMAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.

REGD. OFFICE AT:

SCO NO. 249, BASEMENT, SECOTR 44-C, CHANDIGARH – 160047 …. Respondent Present:

For Appellant : Mr. M. L. Lahoty, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anchit Sripat, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Sarjit Bhadu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Soni, Advocate for Homebuyer.

Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Gautam, Advocate for ACC. J U D G M E N T (Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘IBC’ in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 02.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-I)

in I.A. No. 603/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 248/Chd/Hry/2019. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed I.A. No. 603 of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 248/Chd/2019, filed by the Appellant under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

2. Coming to the brief facts of the case at hand, the Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd.-Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ in short) on 27.02.2023. Upon commencement of the CIRP, the Respondent was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and thereafter continued as the Resolution Professional (‘RP’ in short). A public announcement was issued inviting claims from creditors, following which the process of verification and admission of claims was undertaken during March–April 2023, in the course of which the claim of the Appellant-Homebuyer amounting Rs 96,47,000/- stood admitted in the CIRP. The CoC voted on the Resolution Plan on 19.03.2024 and approved the same with 99.21% vote share. Basis a whistle- blower communication regarding circular transactions raised by one Homebuyer-Anuj Goyal, IA No. 603 of 2025 was filed by the present Appellant asserting that the RP had wrongfully admitted claims though not reflected in the statutory books of the Corporate Debtor or admitted claims which were duplicate in nature or were fully paid up and satisfied claims or admitted claims of related parties. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed IA No. 603 of 2025 on 02.07.2025 with imposition of costs on the Appellant of Rs. 25,000/- by holding that the application was procedurally defective and stood barred on account of locus standi besides being predicated on a roving and fishing enquiry.

3. Making submissions on behalf of the Appellant, Shri M.L. Lahoty, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the impugned order was vitiated as the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate that the RP had deliberately admitted false, fabricated, collusive and fraudulent claims thereby inflating the creditor base and at the same time diluting the share of genuine creditors including present homebuyer. This wrongful admission of claims by the RP compromised the integrity of the CIRP besides prejudicing the interest of the Appellant and other similarly situated homebuyers allottees. In the face of conclusive material substantiating the discrepancies in financial records and claims admitted, it was contended that the Adjudicating Authority committed a manifest error of law in mechanically dismissing I.A No. 603 of 2025 merely on the basis of its nomenclature as an “Intervention Application” without examining the substance of the prayers seeking rejection of fraudulently admitted claims; re-verification