NCLAT established a precedent in the case of Ranju Kumari v. Value Infracon, setting the law for claims filed after the approval of a resolution plan.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), and Barun Mitra & Arun Baroka (Technical Members), observed during an appeal that claims filed after the approval of a Resolution Plan cannot be considered by the Resolution Professional. The NCLAT Bench noted that appellants must approach the Successful Resolution Applicant for any further claims, as established in the precedent set by Mrs. Ranju Kumari v. Value Infracon India Private Limited and Others, REEDLAW 2024 NCLAT Del 02521.
The recent order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) concerning an appeal filed against an earlier order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) dated March 4, 2024. The appeal (IA No. 6341 of 2023) was filed by a homebuyer who had submitted a claim after the approval of the Resolution Plan.
The appellant, claiming to be a homebuyer, had filed a claim on August 21, 2023. However, the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the Adjudicating Authority on April 28, 2022. Since the claim was filed post-approval, the Resolution Professional (RP) did not consider it, prompting the appellant to file IA No. 6341 of 2023.
The Adjudicating Authority disposed of the application by referring to a previous order from the NCLAT dated February 9, 2024, in the case of Mrs. Ranju Kumari v. Value Infracon India Private Limited and Others, REEDLAW 2024 NCLAT Del 02521. In that case, a similar claim by another homebuyer was addressed, and the decision was used as a precedent in this matter.
The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, agreeing that there was no error in disposing of the appellant's application in line with the Mrs Ranju Kumari v. Value Infracon India Private Limited and Others, REEDLAW 2024 NCLAT Del 02521 judgment. The appellant was granted the liberty to approach the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and provide details of the payments made to the corporate debtor. It was emphasized that it would be the SRA's responsibility to decide on the appellant's claim.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, affirming that the disposal of the application by the Adjudicating Authority was lawful. The appellant was advised to present their claim to the SRA for further consideration. The dismissal of the appeal was made without awarding any costs. The NCLAT found no grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order and provided clear directions for the appellant to seek resolution from the SRA.
Subscribers can access the case, along with case analysis, case research, ratio decidendi, headnotes, briefs, caselaw cross-references, etc. etc.
Click on the Citation