NCLT Indore Rules Belated Homebuyer Claims Cannot Reopen Approved Resolution Plan

The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has firmly shut the door on homebuyers who slept on their rights during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Dismissing an application filed nearly two years after the approval of a resolution plan, the Tribunal held that belated claims cannot be used to reopen a concluded insolvency process, upholding the sacrosanct principle of finality enshrined in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Homebuyer’s 23-Month Delay Proves Fatal

The applicant, Nishkarsh Kumar, claimed to be the allottee of Unit No. 1502 in the ‘Pinnacle 'D' Dreams’ project developed by JSM Devcons Private Limited. He asserted that he had paid 100% of the sale consideration amounting to ₹19.13 lakh but was unaware of the CIRP proceedings due to his residence outside Indore. Kumar approached the NCLT in March 2026—over 23 months after the resolution plan was approved on April 5, 2024—seeking recall of the approval order, status quo on the sale of his unit, and directions for registry in his name.

The Tribunal, comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta, noted that Form-G inviting claims was published on three occasions during the CIRP. It rejected Kumar's plea of ignorance, observing that he “wilfully ignored and lost sight of the CIRP” and could not now seek to disturb the approved plan.

Court Upholds Finality of Approved Resolution Plan

The Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), Devvrat Developers Pvt Ltd, opposed the application on grounds of maintainability, arguing that the plan had already attained finality upon approval under Section 31 of the IBC and that entertaining a belated claim would prejudice the 351 other homebuyers who had diligently filed their claims. The SRA invoked the Latin maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt —the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

The NCLT agreed, holding that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, it becomes binding on all stakeholders and no fresh claims can be entertained thereafter. “Allowing claims to be raised after the approval of a Resolution Plan would defeat the very objective of the Code and would render the implementation of the Resolution Plan uncertain and unworkable,” the Bench stated.

Precedents on Claim Extinguishment

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel vs Satish Kumar Gupta and RPS Infrastructure Limited vs Mukul Kumar & Anr. , which established that claims not crystallized before approval of a resolution plan cannot be reopened. It also cited Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. for the principle that approval of a plan creates a “clean slate,” extinguishing all claims not considered.

Kumar had placed reliance on Puneet Kaur v. K V Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni to argue that the Resolution Professional should have included his claim even without formal filing. However, the NCLT distinguished these cases, noting that in both, the resolution plan had not yet received the Tribunal’s approval. In the present case, the plan had already been approved on April 5, 2024, and the statutory period for challenge under Section 61(2) of the IBC had lapsed.

The Verdict

The NCLT dismissed the application in limine as not maintainable, affirming that the approved resolution plan cannot be reopened to accommodate belated claims. The order reinforces the time-bound nature of the CIRP and the finality of resolution plans, providing much-needed certainty for successful resolution applicants and stakeholders who participate in the process in accordance with law.

“Such belated claims cannot be permitted as they would undermine the finality attached to an approved Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,” the Tribunal concluded.