Back
NCLT Chennai Cancels of Homebuyer Who Failed to Submit During
The , has delivered a significant ruling for the insolvency and homebuyer landscape, cancelling a and of a homebuyer who failed to file a during the ) of . The order reinforces the of approved resolution plans and serves as a stark reminder that stakeholders cannot remain silent during the process and later assert rights outside the plan.
The two-member bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam observed that the homebuyer had received two clear opportunities—first during the and then during a after the was approved—but chose not to come forward. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the homebuyer could not “stand outside the ” which had attained .
The Homebuyer’s Claims and the ’s Defense
The dispute arose out of a dated , followed by a dated , between the homebuyer and P Dot G Constructions. The homebuyer claimed to have paid the entire and obtained of the flat. According to the petitioner, ₹22 lakh had been paid by cheque in , and an additional ₹1,37,508 in cash in .
However, the contended that no had been filed by the homebuyer during the , nor during the subsequent provided under of the approved . This clause specifically allowed homebuyers whose claims were not filed or were rejected to approach the within that period.
The NCLT scrutinised the and found it acknowledged only ₹2.88 lakh towards the . The deed did not admit receipt of the remaining ₹18,15,588 for the property described in Schedule B. Furthermore, there was no acknowledgement from the for the alleged cash payment of ₹1,37,508. The bench concluded that the homebuyer had failed to substantiate the that the entire sale had been paid.
The Missed Opportunities
The Tribunal recorded, “the Respondent had not filed any form before the IRP during the CIR Period.” This failure deprived the homebuyer of the right to be considered in the . Even after the plan was approved by the , the respondent did not avail the extra . The bench noted that the had become final and binding on all stakeholders, including those who failed to file claims.
The judges emphasised that a who successfully implements a plan cannot later be confronted with undecided claims. This principle, drawn from the ’s decision in , protects the and sanctity of the resolution process.
Reliance on Precedents
The NCLT placed heavy reliance on the ’s ruling in , which established that homebuyers who do not file claims during the cannot later challenge or stand outside the approved . The bench also referred to the Essar Steel case, where the apex court underscored that a must not be burdened with unknown or belated claims after the plan has been approved.
These judgments form the backbone of the current insolvency framework, ensuring that resolution plans are comprehensive and all stakeholders participate within the designated timelines. The NCLT noted that the homebuyer had ample opportunity to assert his but chose to remain silent, and therefore could not be allowed to disrupt the of the plan.
Implications for Homebuyers and Corporate Insolvency Practice
This decision sends a clear signal to homebuyers involved in insolvent real estate projects: passive ownership of a property—even with a and —does not exempt one from the mandatory filing process under the . The prioritises collective resolution over individual rights, and all creditors, including homebuyers, must actively participate in the to have their claims recognised.
For resolution professionals and successful resolution applicants, the ruling provides comfort that once a plan is approved, it is binding on all stakeholders. The is a reasonable grace period, but those who fail to act even then cannot later seek to undo the plan.
Legal experts view this as a necessary check against potential abuse by homebuyers who may attempt to use or registered documents to circumvent the insolvency process. The order also aligns with the legislative intent of the to ensure time-bound resolution and .
Conclusion
The NCLT Chennai has ordered the cancellation of the and , directed the homebuyer to surrender the original documents within 30 days, and declared that all claims arising from those documents stand . The case is a textbook example of the consequences of failing to adhere to procedural requirements in insolvency matters.
Homebuyers must remain vigilant and file their claims promptly during the , or at least within the additional window provided by the . The NCLT’s ruling reaffirms that the does not permit a stakeholder to pick and choose when to participate. For the legal community, this judgment is a valuable reference on the of resolution plans and the strict enforcement of -filing timelines.
