Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 6217
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Mr Praveen Gupta, Member (Judicial), Mr Ashish Verma, Member (Technical)
Mr Mukesh Kumar Goel and Others – Appellant
Versus
Mr Kunwarpreet Singh, Resolution Professional Raghupati Constructions Private Limited – Respondent
CP (IB) NO. 39/ALD/2023
For the Applicants: Sh. Nilotpal Shyam, Ms. Babita Jain, Ms. Shivali, Ms. Tejas Mishra
For the Respondents: Sh. Sunil Fernandes, Sh. Dinkar Singh
The classification of claims as 'contingent' by the Resolution Professional was upheld, as it aligned with the ongoing RERA appeal outcomes impacting claim validity.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 60(5) and 14 - Classification of claims during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Applicants, homebuyers, deny claims treated as contingent - Tribunal upheld RP’s classification based on RERA order deeming applicants not as allottees - Claims categorization valid given ongoing appeals against RERA order affecting debt status. (Paras 20, 27, 33)
(B) Claims - Resolution Professional’s duty confined to verification based on document scrutiny - Cannot adjudicate on merits conflicting with existing statutory judgments. (Paras 26, 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
Applicants claim against Corporate Debtor based on payment receipts for housing units, facing rejection due to ongoing RERA appeals.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal finds RP's decisions within legal framework, affirming pending claims recognized in Resolution Plan alongside contingency measures.
Issues: Whether RP acted within rights in classifying claims as contingent based on RERA outcomes.
Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal confirmed RP’s classification coherence with prevailing law; secured claims status until appellate resolution essential.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed regarding financial claims against corporate debtor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. nature of claims from homebuyers presented in insolvency. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. emphasis on the treatment of homebuyer claims as contingent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. rp's methodology in claims verification scrutinized against rera order. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. final judgment affirms the rp's classification of claims as appropriate. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 33) |
ORDER
1. This present Application has been filed on 30.01.2024, by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goel and Others (“Applicants”) against the Resolution Professional (“Respondent/RP”) of M/s Raghupati Construction Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:
a. To allow the present Application;
b. To direct the Respondent–Resolution Professional to admit the claims of the Applicants as Financial Creditors and induct them into the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the Corporate Debtor;
c. To stay further CoC meetings till the disposal of the present Application and allow the Applicants to be part of the CoC; and
d. To pass any such further order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
2. The Applicants submit that the Corporate Debtor, Raghupati Construction Private Limited (formerly M/s Kalindi Construction Company Private Limited), was incorporated on 25.01.2005 and had purchased land measuring 2.0450 hectares situated at Village Roshanpur Dorli, Meerut during the period 2005–2006. On 03.06.2011, the Corporate Debtor entered into an Agreement to Sell with M/s Shreenath Developers & Promoters and M/s Pristine Buildwell Private Limited for the sale of 19,515 sq. meters out of the said land for a total consideration of Rs. 8,96,28,460/-.
3. It is submitted that upon the withdrawal of M/s Pristine Buildwell Private Limited, Mr. Shyam Sundar Yadav, partner of M/s Shreenath Developers & Promoters, entered into a fresh agreement dated 28.03.2012 with Mr. Rajendra Prasad Tayal and his group to acquire the Corporate Debtor, whereby Mr. Yadav and Mr. Tayal were to hold 40% and 60% of the shareholding respectively, with the existing shareholders consenting to dilute their shares at a pre-determined rate. Pursuant thereto, both individuals were appointed as Additional Directors in the 36th Board Meeting of the Corporate Debtor held on 31.05.2012, and Mr. Yadav continued as Director until 27.11.2012.
4. During his tenure, Mr. Yadav is stated to have issued receipts to several flat buyers in the name of M/s Shreenath Developers & Promoters for cash amounts collected towards the purchase of residential units, assuring delivery of possession. Thereafter, fresh receipts were issued in the name of M/s Kalindi Construction Company Private Limited which later on was renamed as M/s Raghupati Construction Private Limited. The construction activities were partly executed from funds collected from homebuyers. However, due to disputes among the management, construction halted, and the project site was closed towards the end of 2013.
5. It is further submitted that though Mr. Yadav was removed as Director with effect from 27.11.2012 (public notice dated 02.08.2013), he continued to retain control of the site. In 2015–2016, a mutual settlement was attempted wherein Mr. Yadav was to take over the project, resell the units, and refund the homebuyers through post-dated cheques and MOUs. However, the said cheques were dishonoured, leading to the registration of FIR dated 10.11.2017. Upon investigation, the police filed a charge sheet confirming that the directors had collected cash from flat buyers. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in its order dated 19.07.2019, passed in Application U/s 482 No. 24772/2019, also upheld the findings that the accused were indeed involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and
