Homebuyer entitled to possession if their name included in list of financial creditors

Homebuyer entitled to possession of the Apartment if their name incorporated in the list of financial creditors – Supreme Court

In a recent judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that once the name of homebuyers was incorporated in the list of financial creditors of the corporate debtor published by the Resolution Professional, they are entitled to possession of the Apartment.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4745 (2025) (09) abcaus.in SC

In the instant case, the appellants had challenged the order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (the NCLAT) confirming the decision of the NCLT rejecting the Appellants claim for possession of their residential apartment in the real estate project of the Corporate Debtor.

The said Corporate Debtor was a real estate developer. The appellant had booked apartment in the project of the Corporate Debtor and executed a Buyer’s Agreement and paid 95 per cent of the contractual amount, the balance being agreed to be adjusted on account of delay in delivery of possession.

As the Corporate Debtor failed to hand over possession on or before the agreed date, the, Appellants approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), inter alia seeking refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation.

While the proceedings were pending, the NCLT admitted an application under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Debtor, thereby, commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (the “CIRP”). Considering it, the SCDRC disposed of the complaint with liberty reserved to the Appellants to pursue their claim before the competent authority in the CIRP proceedings.

The appellant filed their claim first at the project office and then by email to the Interim Resolution Professional who published the list of financial creditors wherein appellants name was reflected with their claim duly admitted.

The Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors and subsequently approved by the NCLT. However, the possession of the allotted apartment was not delivered to the appellants. Constrained thereby, the Appellants approached the NCLT

for directions for execution of the conveyance deed and handover of possession.

The Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant, however, opposed the application, asserting that the only claim filed by the Appellants was by email well after the Committee of Creditors had approved the Resolution Plan. Therefore, the appellants were entitled for refund of only 50% of the principal amount paid. As a result, the NCLT dismissed the application of the appellants.

The NCLAT observed that the appellants had admittedly not filed their claim within the period stipulated in the public announcement and the plea of physical filing at the project office was unsupported by any contemporaneous record, and that in terms of the public announcement, claims were to be submitted only through email. As a result NCLAT also dismissed the appeal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it was not in dispute that the Appellants are bona fide homebuyers, having booked an apartment with the Corporate Debtor.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that it was also an admitted and undisputed fact that the Appellants claim was duly verified by the Resolution Professional; and that it was incorporated in the published list of creditors. Once such verification and incorporation occurred, the claim acquired full legal recognition within the CIRP process. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that 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 approach of the NCLAT in brushing aside the admitted position, and in treating the Appellants as if they had not filed any claim at all was not acceptable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted that the clause 18.4(ii) of the Resolution Plan stated that the claim has been filed and admitted by the Resolution Professional, and the allotment letter issued, the claim shall be honored in full.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the NCLAT and NCLT and directions were issued to Resolution Professional to execute the Conveyance Deed and hand over possession of Apartment to the Appellants.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities
• No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT