SC Rules Verified Homebuyers Entitled to Flat Possession Under IBC

Case Details: Amit Nehra vs. Pawan Kumar Garg - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 254 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sanjay Kumar & Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
• Aditya Wadhwa, Sonal Sarda, Ms Noyonika Deori, Aman Kumar, R. Vishnu Kumar, Saurav Beniwal, Sidhant Verma, Ms Mansi Vats, Advs. & R. Ilam Paridi, Aor for the Appellant
• Vaibhav Mishra, Ms Anuja Pethia, Manoj C. Mishra, Aors & Himanshu Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, appellants booked an apartment in a project of the corporate debtor and paid almost the entire sale consideration. However, the corporate debtor failed to deliver possession within the agreed period.
Meanwhile, the CIRP was initiated against the corporate debtor, and the appellants submitted their claim before the Resolution Professional. The Resolution Professional published a list of financial creditors, wherein the appellant’s name was reflected, with their claim duly admitted.

The NCLT approved the Resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicant. 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.

Despite the admitted inclusion of the appellants’ claim in the list of financial creditors, possession of the allotted apartment was not delivered. The appellants approached the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) seeking directions to the Resolution Professional and the Successful Resolution Applicant for execution of the conveyance deed and handover of possession.

The NCLT held that the appellant’s claim was to be dealt with strictly in accordance with clause 18.4(xi) of the resolution plan, entitling them only to a refund of 50% of the principal sum. The NCLAT affirmed the decision of the NCLT. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court held

The Supreme Court held that since the appellants had paid nearly the entire sale consideration, submitted their claim, and had it duly verified and admitted by Resolution Professional, they could not be treated as belated claimants entitled only to a refund of 50% of their principal deposit under clause 18.4(xi) of the resolution plan, but were entitled to possession.

Therefore, the judgment of NCLAT as well as the order of NCLT were to be set aside, and the respondent was to execute a conveyance deed and hand over possession of the apartment to the appellants.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of NCLAT, New Delhi in Amit Nehra v. Pawan Kumar Garg [CAAT(I)-1365-2023, dated 10-01-2025] (para 39) set aside.

List of Cases Referred to

• Puneet Kaur v. K V Developers (P.) Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 500 (NCLAT- New Delhi) (para 14)
• Paramjeet Kaur v. Puma Realtors (P.) Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2023, dated 25-3-2025] (para 41).