AMIT NEHRA VS PAWAN KUMAR GARG: CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Amit Mehra vs. Pawan Kumar Garg (Civil Appeal No. 4296/2025) held that once a claim is verified and incorporated in the list of creditors, it gets full legal recognition.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. undertook development of integrated residential townships in Punjab, including IREO Rise situated in Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The Appellants booked a flat and paid Rs. 57,56,684/- out of the full consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-. As the flat was not handed over within the stipulated time, the Appellants filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. During the pendency of the matter, Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. was admitted to insolvency. The consumer case was disposed of with a direction to pursue the claim before the competent authority in the CIRP proceedings.

The Appellants filed a claim before the Resolution Professional, which was admitted to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684/-. Despite inclusion of the Appellants’ claim, possession of the flat was not given. Instead, the Appellants were offered 50% refund as per Clause 18.4(xi) and 18.4(xix) on the ground that they had filed the claim after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, while other claimants were handed over possession of flats.

The Appellants filed an application before the NCLT seeking directions to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession, which was dismissed. The appeal before the NCLAT was also dismissed.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The issue before the Court was whether the Appellants were to be paid 50% of their claim amount on account of belated filing of the claim under the residual category of the Resolution Plan, or whether they were entitled to possession of the flat.

The case of the Appellants was that they filed their claim on 11.01.2019 physically at the project office and again on 07.02.2020 in response to the email of the RP dated 31.01.2020. Their name also appeared in the List of Financial Creditors dated 30.04.2020. The Respondent disputed filing of the claim on 11.01.2019 and contended that the Appellants filed their claim only on 07.02.2020, after the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019, and thus they were entitled only to 50% refund.

The Supreme Court observed that once verification and incorporation of a claim occurs, it acquires full legal recognition within the CIRP process.

The Court noted that the Respondent’s reliance on Clause 18.4(xi) was misconceived. That clause is intended to apply only to allottees who had defaulted in filing or pursuing their claims. The Appellants could not be so characterized, having paid nearly the entire consideration, submitted their claim, and had it duly verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional.

The Court further observed that this was not a case of entertaining a fresh claim beyond the Resolution Plan. It concerned an allottee whose claim was verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional and reflected in the list of financial creditors well before approval of the plan by the adjudicating authority. To disregard such an admitted claim and confine the Appellants to the limited benefit under Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan would not preserve the binding effect of the plan but would misapply it.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the NCLAT and directed the Respondent to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession.

_______________________________________________________