NCLAT UPHOLDS REJECTION OF HOMEBUYER’S CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF PAYMENT TO CORPORATE DEBTOR

A Three Judge Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT), comprising of Justice Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Barun Mitra and Justice Arun Baroka passed a Judgment dated 24-05-2024 in the matter of Devesh Raminklal Thakker vs. Arun Kapoor., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 808 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2633, 2914 of 2024 and observed that as the Appellant failed to prove the payment of consideration, hence, the NCLAT held that the Resolution Professional had not erred in rejecting the Appellant’s claim.

FACTS:

i) That the Appeal above filed before the NCLAT, by one, Devesh Raminklal Thakker (Appellant) against one, Arun Kapoor (Respondent), challenged the Order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai that rejected the A. No.2218 of 2022 filed by the Appellant, which was for the acceptance of his claim. The Resolution Professional requested that the Appellant provide details of the bank used for making payments, but the Appellant failed to provide the required information.

ii) The Appellant, Devesh Raminklal Thakker, submitted a Claim based on an Agreement for Sale dated 13.01.2016 and payment receipt, stating he was a homebuyer in the Corporate Debtor’s Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Resolution Professional requested bank details for the payments, but the Appellant failed to provide the same, resulting in the rejection of the Claim. The Appellant then filed A. No. 2218 of 2022 with the Adjudicating Authority, which was also rejected on 19.12.2023.

iii) The Appellant claimed that payments were made as per the Agreement for Sale, specifically citing Clause 1.4, and attached a receipt showing three Cheque payments totalling Rs. 27,00,000/-. Despite this, the Appellant argued that some consideration was paid in cash, a claim unsupported by the attached receipt or any other evidence.

iv) The Agreement for Sale specified that payments should be made via cheque or demand draft, as outlined in Para 5.1. The receipt detailed payments made through three Cheques, contradicting the Appellant’s assertion of cash payment mentioned in Para 4.3 of the Application to the Adjudicating Authority.

v) The NCLT found no error in the Resolution Professional’s rejection of the Claim due to the Appellant’s failure to prove the payment of consideration. Although the Appellant mentioned that the claims of two other homebuyers were accepted, the NCLT noted that these cases were based on their specific facts, which did not apply to the Appellant’s situation. The Application was dismissed due to the lack of proof of payment.

NCLAT OBSERVATIONS:

Aggrieved by the Order dated 19.12.2023 of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 808 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2633, 2914 of 2024, thereby challenging the Ld. NCLT Order that rejected the I.A. No.2218 of 2022 filed by the Appellant seeking acceptance of his Claim

ISSUE:

The Issue before the NCLAT was the rejection of I.A. No. 2218 of 2022 by the Adjudicating Authority, concerning the Claim made by Devesh Raminklal Thakker, who asserted to be a homebuyer in the Corporate Debtor’s Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

OBSERVATIONS:

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) noted a 12-day delay in filing the Appeal, which was condoned after sufficient cause was shown. The Appeal challenged the rejection of I.A. No. 2218 of 2022 by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant, Devesh Raminklal Thakker, claimed to be a homebuyer in the Corporate Debtor’s CIRP based on an Agreement for Sale dated 13.01.2016 and payment receipt.

However, the Resolution Professional rejected the Claim due to the Appellant’s failure to provide bank details for the payments. The Appellant argued that payments were made as per the Agreement, including some in cash, but the attached receipt only showed payments via cheque. Despite the Appellant’s claims, the NCLAT upheld the NCLT Order of the rejection of the Claim, thereby, finding no error in the Resolution Professional’s decision.

CONCLUSION:

The NCLAT dismissed the Appeal filed by Devesh Raminklal Thakker, upholding the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to reject his Claim in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient proof of payment for the property as per the Agreement for Sale, thereby affirming the Resolution Professional’s decision to reject his Claim.

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer