AMIT NEHRA & ANR.versusPAWAN KUMAR GARG & ORS.

                 [2025] 9 S.C.R. 627 : 2025 INSC 1086

                          Amit Nehra & Anr.
                                 v.
                       Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2025)
                             09 September 2025
           [Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the appellants, being allottees of an apartment in a project
       developed by the erstwhile Corporate Debtor and having admittedly
       paid a sum of Rs.57,56,684/- out of the total consideration of
       Rs.60,06,368/-, are to be treated as belated claimants entitled only
       to refund of 50% of their principal deposit under Clause 18.4(xi),
       or whether, their claim having been duly verified and incorporated
       in the list of creditors, they are entitled to possession in terms of
       Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan.

                                   Headnotes†
       Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.62 – The appellants,
       aggrieved by the failure to deliver possession of their allotted
       apartment despite substantial consideration being paid, filed
       an application before the NCLT seeking, inter alia, directions
       to the Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution
       Applicants to execute the conveyance deed in their favour –
       Applications were opposed by the Resolution Professional
       and the Successful Resolution Applicant asserting that the
       only claim filed by the appellants was on 07.02.2020, well
       after the Committee of Creditors had approved the Resolution
       Plan on 23.08.2019 – It was argued that the appellants claim
       was therefore squarely covered by Clause 18.4(xi), which
       provided for refund of only 50% of the principal amount
       paid – Correctness:
       Held: The admitted and undisputed position remains that the
       appellants claim was resubmitted on 07.02.2020; that it was duly
       verified by the Resolution Professional; and that it was incorporated
       in the published list of creditors dated 30.04.2020 – Once such



* Author
628                                                                [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       verification and incorporation occurred, the claim acquired full legal
       recognition within the CIRP process – The publication of the list of
       financial creditors is an act in discharge of a statutory duty by the
       Resolution Professional – It cannot be reduced to a meaningless
       formality – The Resolution Professional rightly admitted the claim
       of the Appellants to the extent of Rs.57,56,684/- and reflected it at
       Serial No.636 in the list of financial creditors – Clause 18.4(xi) of
       the Resolution Plan is residuary in nature, applying where no claim
       has been filed, or if filed, not verified by the Resolution Professional,
       or if verified, not communicated to the Resolution Applicant; such
       allottees are extended only a reduced benefit of refund of 50% of
       the principal amount deposited – The appellants case, on admitted
       facts, does not fall within Clause 18.4(xi) – Their claim was filed,
       verified, and informed to the Successful Resolution Applicant, as is
       evidenced by the entry at Serial No. 636 in the list of creditors dated
       30.04.2020, admitting their claim to the extent of Rs.57,56,684/- –
       Once so admitted, their case squarely falls within Clause 18.4(ii)
       read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan – Clause 18.4(ii)
       stipulates that where the claim has been filed and admitted by
       the Resolution Professional, and the allotment letter issued, the
       claim shall be honored in full and Clause 18.4(vi)(a) sets out the
       payment plan for existing allottees, providing for handover of units
       or execution of conveyance – Accordingly, respondent(s) directed
       to execute the Conveyance Deed and hand over possession of
       Apartment to the appellants. [Paras 32, 33, 34, 40]

                                  Case Law Cited
       Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online
       NCLAT 245 – referred to.

                                    List of Acts
       Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

                                 List of Keywords
       Allottees of an apartment; Belated claimants; Claim incorporated
       in the list of creditors; Possession; Conveyance deed; Failure to
       deliver possession; Approved the Resolution Plan; Resolution
       Professional; Successful Resolution Applicant; Clause 18.4(xi)
       of the Resolution Plan; Clause of Resolution Plan giving benefit
       of refund of 50% of the principal amount deposited; Real Estate.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        629

             Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.


                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2025 of the National
     Company Law Appellate Tribunal in CAAT(I) No. 1365 of 2023

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Aditya Wadhwa, Ms. Sonal Sarda, Ms. Noyonika Deori, R. Ilam
     Paridi, Aman Kumar, R. Vishnu Kumar, Saurav Beniwal, Sidhant
     Verma, Ms. Mansi Vats.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Vaibhav Mishra, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Noor Shergill, Rishabh Govila,
     Rishabh Nigam, Himanshu Gupta, Manoj C. Mishra.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

     STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.   This Civil Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
     Code, 2016 (the “IBC”) is filed against the judgment and final order
     dated 10.01.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate
     Tribunal, New Delhi (the “NCLAT”) in Company Appeal (AT)
     (Insolvency) No. 1365 of 2023, whereby the NCLAT affirmed the
     decision of the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench,
     New Delhi (the “NCLT”) rejecting the Appellants claim for possession
     of their residential apartment in the real estate project of M/s Puma
     Realtors Private Limited (the “Corporate Debtor”).
2.   The erstwhile Corporate Debtor, M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited,
     an IREO Group company, undertook development of integrated
     residential townships in Punjab, including the project IREO Rise
     (Gardenia) situated in Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The project,
     conceived as a modern residential complex, envisaged delivery of
     multiple residential blocks with allied amenities and facilities.
3.   The Appellants both residents of Bengaluru, booked an apartment
     in the said project in the year 2010. On 27.05.2011, they executed
630                                                           [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement with the Corporate Debtor for
       purchase of Apartment No. GBD-00-001 in Block D. Against the
       total sale consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-, the Appellants paid Rs.
       57,56,684/-, constituting almost the entirety of the contractual amount,
       the balance being agreed to be adjusted on account of delay in
       delivery of possession.
4.     As per the buyer’s agreement, possession was to be handed over
       on or before 27.11.2013. The Corporate Debtor, however, failed to
       deliver possession within the agreed period, or thereafter. Left with
       no option, the Appellants instituted Consumer Complaint No. 279 of
       2018 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
       Chandigarh, inter alia seeking refund of the amount paid along with
       interest and compensation.
5.     While the aforesaid proceedings were pending, on 17.10.2018, the
       NCLT admitted an application under Section 7 of the IBC bearing
       CP(IB) No. 934 (PB) of 2018 against the Corporate Debtor, thereby,
       commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (the
       “CIRP”) in respect of M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited. Considering
       the foregoing, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
       Chandigarh, vide order dated 13.12.2018, disposed of the complaint
       with liberty reserved to the Appellants to pursue their claim before
       the competent authority in the CIRP proceedings.
6.     Pursuant thereto, the Interim Resolution Professional issued a
       public announcement on 22.10.2018 calling upon all creditors,
       including homebuyers, to submit their claims in the prescribed form.
       The Appellants, being allottee of both a plot in the “IREO Hamlet”
       project and the present apartment in “IREO Rise (Gardenia),” initially
       submitted their claim qua the plot on 29.10.2018. In so far as the
       apartment is concerned, the Appellants authorised representative,
       Col. K.K. Verma (father of Appellant No. 2), physically submitted
       Form-CA together with supporting documents on 11.01.2019 at the
       project office of the Corporate Debtor at Mohali. The Respondent(s),
       however, dispute this filing, asserting that no such physical claim
       was received at the notified address of the Resolution Professional.
7.     Be that as it may, on 31.01.2020, the Resolution Professional, citing
       incomplete records of the Corporate Debtor, addressed an email
       inviting creditors to resubmit claims. Acting thereupon, the Appellants
       resubmitted their claim through email on 07.02.2020. Thereafter, on
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        631

             Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.


     30.04.2020, the Resolution Professional published the list of financial
     creditors, wherein the Appellants name was reflected at Serial No.
     636, with their claim duly admitted to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684/-.
8.   The Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No(s). 2 and 3/
     Successful Resolution Applicant (“One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”
     and “APM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”) was approved by the Committee
     of Creditors on 23.08.2019 and subsequently approved by the
     NCLT vide order dated 01.06.2021. As per the Resolution Plan, the
     treatment of homebuyer claims was governed by Clause 18.4, with
     distinct provisions for timely claims and belated claims.
9.   Despite the admitted inclusion of the Appellants claim in the list
     of financial creditors, possession of the allotted apartment was
     not delivered. Constrained thereby, the Appellants approached
     the Adjudicating Authority seeking directions to the Resolution
     Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant for execution
     of the conveyance deed and handover of possession, which was
     rejected. Their appeal before the NCLAT met with the same fate
     and was dismissed, resulting in the impugned order now under
     challenge before us.

     SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the entire
    approach of the Adjudicating Authority and the NCLAT is vitiated by
    a fundamental misappreciation of facts and misapplication of the
    relevant clauses of the approved Resolution Plan. It is urged that
    the Appellants are bona fide homebuyers, who, having paid a sum
    of Rs. 57,56,684/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-,
    have acquired a vested right in the apartment allotted to them in
    IREO Rise (Gardenia).
11. It is emphasized that the Appellants claim was first submitted through
    their authorized representative on 11.01.2019, immediately upon
    withdrawal of their consumer complaint, and in any event, was
    resubmitted pursuant to email of the Resolution Professional inviting
    homebuyers/financial creditors to resubmit claims, on 07.02.2020.
    The said claim stood verified and admitted, as is borne out by the list
    of financial creditors published on 30.04.2020, where the Appellants
    appear at Serial No. 636 whereby their claim stood admitted to the
    extent of Rs. 57,56,684/-. Once their claim was duly verified and
632                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       admitted, the Appellants submit that there remained no basis for
       treating them under Clause 18.4(xi) of the plan, which governs cases
       of unverified or uninformed claims.
12. Learned Counsel submits that Clause 18.4(xi) applies only in
    cases where the allottee has not filed a claim with the Resolution
    Professional, or having filed, it has not been verified, or having been
    verified, it has not been informed to the Resolution Applicant. By
    contrast, Clause 18.4(vi)(a) governs cases of allottees whose claims
    stand verified and admitted. The Appellants, therefore, are entitled to
    delivery of possession of the apartment or an equivalent alternative
    unit, and not to a reduced refund of 50% of the total consideration.
13. It is further urged that the Resolution Professional himself
    acknowledged the difficulty of incomplete records by way of the
    email dated 31.01.2020, and invited resubmission of claims. Pursuant
    thereto, the Appellants resubmitted their Form-CA, which stood
    accepted. Once the Resolution Professional himself had adopted
    such course, the Respondent(s) cannot now be heard to allege that
    the Appellants claim is ‘belated’.
14. Learned Counsel relies upon Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt.
    Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT 245 to contend that non-
    consideration of claims which are reflected in the record leads to
    inequitable and unfair resolution. It would now be unfair to relegate
    homebuyer(s) claims to the residual or discretionary category of
    refund.
15. Learned Counsel further submits that the NCLAT, in mechanically
    treating the Appellants as belated claimants, disregarded their verified
    inclusion in the list of creditors and thereby inflicted grave injustice
    by depriving bona-fide homebuyers of their rightful allotment despite
    substantial amount having been paid. Relegating the Appellants to
    a reduced refund, despite the claim being admitted by Resolution
    Professional, undermines both the resolution plan and the scheme
    of the code.

       SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT(S)
16. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional
    and the Successful Resolution Applicant (Respondent No(s). 2 and 3)
    submits that the Appellants failed to file any valid claim in respect
    of their apartment within the statutory timelines prescribed by the
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                         633

             Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.


     Code and the public announcement dated 22.10.2018. The Interim
     Resolution Professional categorically stipulated in the aforesaid public
     announcement, that claims be submitted either by electronic means
     or at the notified address in New Delhi. The alleged physical filing
     at the Mohali project office on 11.01.2019 is denied, on the ground
     that neither the Resolution Professional nor his staff operated from
     the Mohali address.
17. Learned Counsel assert that the Form-CA relied upon by the
    Appellants itself calculates interest upto 07.02.2020, demonstrating
    preparation and filing only on that date. It is urged that this is clear
    evidence that the form was in fact prepared and filed only on that
    date, and any plea of an earlier submission is an afterthought to
    overcome limitation.
18. It is further urged that by the time the Appellants filed their claim on
    07.02.2020, the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the
    Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019. Consequently, the Appellants
    claim fell squarely within the ambit of Clause 18.4(xi) and 18.4(xix)
    of the Resolution Plan, entitling them only to a refund of 50% of the
    principal sum.
19. It is also contended that the Appellants had knowledge of the public
    announcement and had in fact filed a claim for their plot in the IREO
    Hamlet project on 29.10.2018. Having been aware of the process,
    they deliberately chose not to file a claim for the apartment until
    February 2020. Having slept over their rights, the Appellants cannot
    now seek parity with those allottees who filed their claims within time.
20. The Respondent(s), therefore, submit that the findings of the
    Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal are unexceptionable,
    having correctly applied Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan to
    the facts at hand. It is urged that the present appeal deserves to
    be dismissed.

     FINDINGS OF THE NCLT
21. The Appellants, aggrieved by the failure to deliver possession of
    their allotted apartment despite substantial consideration being paid,
    filed an application before the NCLT being I.A. No. 5579 of 2021
    in CP (IB) No. 934(PB)/2018, seeking, inter alia, directions to the
    Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicants
634                                                       [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


       to execute the conveyance deed in their favour and to hand over
       physical possession of the apartment GBD-00-001 (Block D), IREO
       Rise (Gardenia), Mohali.
22. Primarily, the Appellants contended that they had duly submitted their
    claim in Form-CA on 11.01.2019 at the Mohali project office, and in
    any event resubmitted it on 07.02.2020 pursuant to the Resolution
    Professional’s email dated 31.01.2020 inviting homebuyers who had
    not filed their claim, to submit their claim within six months from the
    date of approval of the Resolution Plan by NCLT. It was contended
    by the Appellants that their claim stood verified and admitted by the
    Resolution Professional, and was accordingly reflected in the list of
    financial creditors published on 30.04.2020. Hence, they could not
    be relegated to the restrictive treatment as per clause 18.4(xi) of the
    Resolution Plan, and therefore, the Appellants are entitled either the
    aforesaid apartment or the amount reflecting in the list of creditors
    along with interest till the date of realization.
23. The Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant,
    however, opposed the application, denying that any claim had
    been filed on 11.01.2019, and asserting that the only claim filed
    by the Appellants was on 07.02.2020, well after the Committee of
    Creditors had approved the Resolution Plan on 23.08.2019. It was
    argued that the Appellants claim was therefore squarely covered
    by Clause 18.4(xi), which provided for refund of only 50% of the
    principal amount paid.
24. Vide order dated 26.07.2023, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the
    application. It recorded that there was no proof to substantiate the
    assertion of a claim having been filed on 11.01.2019 and held that
    the claim was in fact filed only on 07.02.2020, subsequent to approval
    of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019.
    Noting that the Resolution Plan had been duly approved and attained
    finality, the NCLT held that the Appellants claim was to be dealt with
    strictly in accordance with Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan,
    entitling them only to refund of 50% of the principal sum.

       FINDINGS OF THE NCLAT
25. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants preferred Company Appeal (AT)
    (Insolvency) No. 1365 of 2023 before the NCLAT challenging the
    order of the NCLT. They reiterated that their claim had been submitted
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          635

             Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.


     on 11.01.2019 and in any event resubmitted on 07.02.2020 pursuant
     to the Resolution Professional’s communication dated 31.01.2020
     inviting homebuyers who had not filed their claim, to submit their claims
     within six months from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan
     by NCLT. Relying on the list of creditors dated 30.04.2020, wherein
     their claim was duly admitted to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684/- the
     Appellants contended that they could not be placed under Clause
     18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan. NCLAT, however, did not find merit
     with these submissions.
26. Vide judgment dated 10.01.2025, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
    It observed that the Appellants had admittedly not filed their claim
    within the period stipulated in the public announcement. It further
    noted that the plea of physical filing at the Mohali office on 11.01.2019
    was unsupported by any contemporaneous record, and that in
    terms of the public announcement, claims were to be submitted
    only through electronic means or at the New Delhi address of the
    Resolution Professional.
27. On the aforesaid premise, the NCLAT held that the claim of the
    Appellants could be recognised only from 07.02.2020, when it was
    resubmitted by e-mail. Since by that date the Resolution Plan had
    already been approved by the Committee of Creditors on 23.08.2019,
    the Appellants case, according to the NCLAT, fell within the ambit
    of Clause 18.4(xi) of the Resolution Plan. As per the said clause,
    such belated claims were to be dealt with at the discretion of the
    Resolution Applicant, and only to the extent of 50% refund of the
    principal amount paid. The NCLAT thus concluded that the Appellants
    were not entitled to possession of the apartment, but only to refund
    of 50% of their deposit, i.e., Rs. 28,78,342/-, payable in Quarter 13,
    as envisaged in the approved Resolution Plan.

     ANALYSIS AND REASONING
28. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
    advanced at the bar and perused the material placed on record.
    The central question which falls for our determination is whether the
    Appellants, being allottees of an apartment in the project IREO Rise
    (Gardenia), Mohali developed by the erstwhile Corporate Debtor M/s
    Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and having admittedly paid a sum of Rs.
    57,56,684/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 60,06,368/-, are to
    be treated as belated claimants entitled only to refund of 50% of
636                                                         [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       their principal deposit under Clause 18.4(xi), or whether, their claim
       having been duly verified and incorporated in the list of creditors,
       they are entitled to possession in terms of Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the
       Resolution Plan.
29. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the Appellants are bona fide
    homebuyers, having booked an apartment with the Corporate Debtor
    as far back as 2010, and having executed a Buyer’s Agreement on
    27.05.2011. A sum of Rs. 57,56,684/-, constituting almost entirety of
    the sale consideration, stands paid. The balance was contractually
    adjustable against penalty for delay in handing over possession.
30. The case of the Appellants rests on two principal pillar(s): first, that
    their claim was initially submitted on 11.01.2019 in physical form at the
    project office at Mohali; and second, that pursuant to the Resolution
    Professional’s email dated 31.01.2020 inviting homebuyers who
    had not filed their claim, to do so, they resubmitted their Form-CA
    on 07.02.2020 by way of an e-mail. Their claim was thereafter duly
    verified, admitted and incorporated in the list of financial creditors
    published on 30.04.2020 at Serial No. 636.
31. The Respondent(s) have strenuously disputed the alleged filing of
    11.01.2019, contending that no such claim was received at the notified
    address, and further that the Form-CA itself computes interest up
    to 07.02.2020. While this factual dispute has occupied considerable
    attention before the fora below, it appears to us that resolution of
    the present appeal does not hinge upon the disputed assertion of
    11.01.2019.
32. The admitted and undisputed position remains that the Appellants
    claim was resubmitted on 07.02.2020; that it was duly verified by
    the Resolution Professional; and that it was incorporated in the
    published list of creditors dated 30.04.2020. Once such verification
    and incorporation occurred, the claim acquired full legal recognition
    within the CIRP process.
33. We are unable to countenance the approach of the NCLAT in brushing
    aside this admitted position, and in treating the Appellants as if they
    had not filed any claim at all. The publication of the list of financial
    creditors is an act in discharge of a statutory duty by the Resolution
    Professional. It cannot be reduced to a meaningless formality. Learned
    Counsel for the Appellants has rightly placed reliance on Puneet
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                         637

             Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.


     Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC Online NCLAT
     245, wherein it was observed as follows:
           “…...However, we are of the view that the claim of those
           homebuyers, who could not file their claims, but whose
           claims were reflected in the record of the corporate
           debtor, ought to have been included in the information
           memorandum and resolution applicant, ought to have taken
           note of the said liabilities and should have appropriately
           dealt with them in the resolution plan. Non-consideration
           of such claims, which are reflected from the record, leads
           to inequitable and unfair resolution as is seen in the
           present case. To mitigate the hardship of the appellant,
           we thus, are of the view that ends of justice would be
           met, if direction is issued to the resolution professional
           to submit the details of homebuyers, whose details are
           reflected in the records of the corporate debtor including
           their claims, to the resolution applicant, on the basis of
           which the resolution applicant shall prepare an addendum
           to the resolution plan, which may be placed before the
           committee of creditors for consideration…..”
     In this backdrop, the Resolution Professional rightly admitted the
     claim of the Appellants to the extent of Rs. 57,56,684/- and reflected
     it at Serial No. 636 in the list of financial creditors.
34. It is next necessary to examine the structure of Clause 18.4 of the
    Resolution Plan, which prescribes distinct treatments for different
    categories of allottees. Clause 18.4(ii) stipulates that where the claim
    has been filed and admitted by the Resolution Professional, and the
    allotment letter issued, the claim shall be honored in full. Clause
    18.4(vi)(a) sets out the payment plan for existing allottees, providing
    for handover of units or execution of conveyance. By contrast, Clause
    18.4(xi) is residuary in nature, applying where no claim has been filed,
    or if filed, not verified by the Resolution Professional, or if verified,
    not communicated to the Resolution Applicant; such allottees are
    extended only a reduced benefit of refund of 50% of the principal
    amount deposited. Clause 18.4(xix) clarifies that belated claims filed
    between submission of the plan and its approval by the Adjudicating
    Authority are to be dealt with ‘in the manner elucidated above and
    relevant to their case’.
638                                                          [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


35. The Appellants case, on admitted facts, does not fall within Clause
    18.4(xi). Their claim was filed, verified, and informed to the Successful
    Resolution Applicant, as is evidenced by the entry at Serial No. 636
    in the list of creditors dated 30.04.2020, admitting their claim to the
    extent of Rs. 57,56,684/. Once so admitted, their case squarely falls
    within Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution
    Plan.
36. The Respondent(s) reliance on Clause 18.4(xi) is misconceived. That
    clause is intended to apply only to allotees who had defaulted in filing
    or pursuing their claims. The Appellants cannot be so characterised,
    having paid nearly the entire consideration, submitted their claim,
    and had it duly verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional.
37. What is critical to note is that this is not a case of entertaining a fresh
    claim beyond the Resolution Plan. It concerns 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)
    is not to preserve the binding effect of the plan but to misapply it.
    Clause 18.4 itself draws a clear distinction between verified claims
    and belated or unverified claims; to obliterate that distinction would
    render the scheme otiose. Relegating bona fide allottees, who have
    paid substantial consideration years in advance, to the status of mere
    refund claimants runs contrary to the very object of the legislative
    framework.
38. The facts of the present case highlight the plight of individual
    homebuyers, who invest their life savings in the hope of securing
    a roof over their heads. The Appellants had paid nearly the entire
    sale consideration as far back as 2011. To deny them possession
    today, despite their claim having been duly verified and admitted,
    would inflict unfair and unwarranted prejudice.

       CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
39. In light of the foregoing analysis and reasoning, the appeal merits
    acceptance. The judgment of the NCLAT dated 10.01.2025 passed
    in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1365 of 2023, as well as
    the order of the NCLT dated 26.07.2023 passed in I.A. No. 5579 of
    2021 in CP (IB) No. 934(PB)/2018, are hereby set aside.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                     639

               Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors.


40. Respondent(s) shall execute the Conveyance Deed and hand over
    possession of Apartment No. GBD-00-001, Block D, IREO Rise
    (Gardenia), Mohali to the Appellants within a period of two months
    from today.
41. Notedly, Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2023 titled “Paramjeet Kaur & Anr.
    v. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”, was dismissed by this Court on
    25.03.2025. Accordingly, I.A. No. 151506 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No.
    4296 of 2025 is rejected.
42. The relief(s) sought by the Appellants in the present appeal are thus
    granted in the terms aforesaid. The appeal stands allowed. Pending
    application(s), if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan