NCLT Mumbai refuses to entertain late CIRP claims filed after CoC plan approval

Background of the dispute

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dealt with a group of five interlocutory applications filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). All five applicants sought an identical relief: condonation of substantial delay in filing their claims in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Calyx Lenora Realty LLP and direction to the Resolution Professional (RP) to admit their claims.

The applications were:

  • Four homebuyers/allottees under registered agreements to sale, and
  • One operational creditor supplying construction material.

The delay in each case was extremely long—between 520 and 618 days from the last date specified in the public announcement.

Key dates in the CIRP:

  • Corporate Debtor admitted into CIRP under Section 9 on 06.06.2023
  • Public announcement in Form A on 16.06.2023, last date for filing claims: 28.06.2023
  • CIRP period extended cumulatively to about 570 days
  • Resolution Plan approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 100% voting on 21.11.2024
  • Application for approval of Resolution Plan (IA (Plan) No. 10 of 2025) filed on 29.01.2025 and pending before NCLT when these IAs were heard

All five applicants filed their claims only after the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan and more than 500 days after the original cut‑off date.

Parties and nature of claims

Interlocutory applications and claim details

  1. I.A. No. 2068 of 2025 – Allottee (homebuyer)

    • Applicant: ALKA RAMANLAL GANDHI (Allottee)
    • Delay: 523 days
    • Claim Amount: Rs. 55,56,096/-

  2. I.A. No. 2106 of 2025 – Allottee (homebuyer)

    • Applicant: VIDYA RAJESH MOHITE (Allottee)
    • Delay: 523 days
    • Claim Amount: Rs. 19,63,739/-

  3. I.A. No. 2604 of 2025 – Operational creditor

    • Applicant: ATUL RMC (Operational creditor)
    • Delay: 598 days
    • Claim Amount: Rs. 15,37,243/-

  4. I.A. No. 2956 of 2025 – Allottee (homebuyer)

    • Applicant: SOMNATH RADHAKISAN AROTE (Allottee)
    • Delay: 618 days
    • Claim Amount: Rs. 18,34,070/-

  5. I.A. No. 3199 of 2025 – Allottee (homebuyer)

    • Applicant: MEGHALI PRAMOD PAWAR (Allottee)
    • Delay: 520 days
    • Claim Amount: Rs. 33,82,499/-

Except for the operational creditor in I.A. No. 2604 of 2025, all applicants were homebuyers claiming rights as allottees under registered agreements to sale for flats in the Corporate Debtor’s real estate project.

Core contentions of the applicants

Homebuyers’ case

The allottees broadly contended as follows:

  1. Registered agreements and payments

    • Each allottee relied on a registered agreement to sale executed between 2019 and 2021, under which the Corporate Debtor had agreed to sell a flat.
    • Significant amounts had already been paid as part of the purchase price.

  2. Project completion dates and delays

    • Agreements contained clauses specifying completion dates (between 31.12.2022 and 31.12.2025) with grace periods.
    • Construction suffered continuous delays, and possession was never handed over.

  3. Late knowledge of CIRP

    • Applicants claimed they only became aware of the ongoing CIRP much later—around December 2024 or May 2025.
    • Immediately after learning of the process, they filed claims in Form CA.

  4. Medical and personal hardships

    • Some allottees cited serious health issues or family tragedies (e.g., paralysis and death of a parent, prolonged medical rest owing to ligament tear) as reasons for not actively tracking the project or legal developments.

  5. Rejection by RP

    • In each case, the RP rejected the claims by email, stating that the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the CoC and was pending approval of the Tribunal.
    • The allottees argued that this rejection was arbitrary, as they were genuine homebuyers who had paid substantial consideration.

  6. Alleged defects in public announcement and non‑compliance with regulations

    • They contended that the public announcement under Regulation 6 was defective because it appeared only in Financial Express (English) and Loksatta (Marathi), which allegedly did not satisfy the “wide circulation” requirement.
    • Using circulation data from the 67th Annual Report of Registrar of Newspapers for India (2022‑2023), they claimed that newspapers like Times of India, Sakal and Lokmat were far more widely circulated in Pune.
    • They asserted that the RP had failed to comply with Regulation 6A by not sending individual communications to known creditors based on the Corporate Debtor’s books of account.
    • This, they argued, amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and deprived them of the opportunity to be vigilant.

Operational creditor’s case

The operational creditor ATUL RMC claimed:

  1. Supply of ready‑mix concrete

    • It had supplied RMC M25 under several purchase orders and corresponding tax invoices during 2020.
    • Payment for these supplies allegedly remained unpaid.

  2. Lack of awareness and medical issues

    • The firm stated it was unaware of the CIRP and pointed to a severe cardiac ailment of the partner’s father (requiring CABG surgery and long convalescence) as a factor hampering business and legal follow‑up.

  3. Prompt filing after knowledge

    • On learning of the CIRP in April 2025, it filed a claim in Form B for Rs. 15,37,243/-, which was rejected on the same ground as the homebuyers—CoC having already approved the Resolution Plan.