Homebuyer’s claim under IBC: NCLAT clarifies claim classification in insolvency proceedings after flat cancellation, Read Judgment

Recently, the NCLAT examined an appeal challenging the NCLT’s decision to reject the Appellant’s claim for recognition as a financial creditor. The dispute arose from the cancellation of a flat allotment and subsequent legal proceedings, including a settlement with the bank and a Supreme Court ruling favoring similarly placed homebuyers. The Tribunal delved into the classification of claims under CIRP and the implications of prior settlements before delivering its verdict.

The appeal challenged the NCLT, New Delhi Bench (Court-II) order dated 10.06.2024, rejecting IA No.2413 of 2024 filed by the Appellant.

The Appellant was allotted Flat No. C-103 on 04.06.2015 for ₹29 lakhs, financed by UCO Bank. On 03.02.2018, the Appellant sought cancellation and repayment of the loan. The bank initiated DRT proceedings, while the Appellant approached UP RERA on 02.03.2019. UP RERA issued a decree on 05.08.2019 directing payment of the outstanding amount with interest.

After settling dues with the bank in 2020, the Appellant filed claims in CIRP post its commencement on 22.03.2021. The Resolution Plan was approved in 2021. Following the Supreme Court ruling in Vishal Chelani & Ors. vs. Debashis Nanda, the Appellant sought recognition as a financial creditor but was denied by the NCLT on 10.06.2024, leading to the present appeal. An additional affidavit dated 28.02.2025 has also been filed.

The Appellant argued that their claim was wrongly categorized as an unsecured financial creditor instead of a homebuyer. They contended that they were not treated as an allottee of Flat No. C-103 and should receive the benefit of the Supreme Court ruling in Vishal Chelani & Ors. vs. Debashis Nanda (Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023).

Contentions of the Respondent:

The Resolution Professional countered that the Appellant's claim was correctly classified as other creditors, as they had requested cancellation of the unit. Further, the amount paid by the Appellant to the bank was not disclosed to the Resolution Professional or SRA. However, in the interest of justice, the Appellant would be reimbursed from the amount reserved in the Resolution Plan. The SRA also supported the Adjudicating Authority’s order.

The NCLAT noted that the Appellant had requested cancellation of their unit and filed a claim for the amount paid towards its allotment. The records of the Corporate Debtor did not reflect the Appellant’s name as a unit holder, and the unit was categorized as vacant inventory. Therefore, the Appellant could not be treated as a homebuyer.

The Tribunal observed that the Appellant had settled dues with the bank by paying ₹17 lakhs as full and final settlement, as confirmed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT):
"During the pendency of the present OA, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in terms of settlement, the applicant bank has already received the entire payment of Rs.17 lacs towards full and final settlement of the dues."

The Adjudicating Authority had noted that ₹29 lakhs was reflected as payable by the Corporate Debtor in its books, and the Resolution Professional was to intimate the bank regarding the amount. However, the Court clarified that the Appellant had already settled with the bank, and the ₹17 lakhs paid by the Appellant should be reimbursed from the amount reserved in the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Professional assured the Tribunal that this amount would be paid to the Appellant.

Considering the facts of the case, it was deemed appropriate to serve the ends of justice by directing the Respondent to make payment of ₹17 lakhs, which had been paid by the Appellant to the bank for settling dues related to the unit in question. No further order was found necessary. The said payment was ordered to be made to the Appellant within 60 days. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of.

Picture Source :