Tribunal holds that homebuyers who fail to file claims within CIRP period or 60-day post-resolution window lose rights over property; sale agreements declared void and property reverts to corporate debtor.
In a significant ruling impacting homebuyers involved in insolvency proceedings, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench, on 16th September 2026, passed a landmark judgment in the matter of P Dot G Constructions Private Limited v. P Jayapal. The case revolved around the failure of a homebuyer, the respondent P Jayapal, to file claims during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor or within the 60-day window provided after approval of the resolution plan.
The corporate debtor, P Dot G Constructions Pvt. Ltd., was admitted into CIRP in July 2018 under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The resolution plan for revival was approved by the Tribunal on 13th December 2019, a decision subsequently upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the Supreme Court of India.
The respondent had entered into a registered sale deed and construction agreement in 2016 for an apartment in the Sunshine Project, paying partial amounts recorded in the sale deed but claiming to have made additional payments not acknowledged in the documents. However, the respondent neither filed a claim during the CIRP period nor availed the 60-day post-approval window to submit claims as stipulated in Clause 4.4(xv) of the approved resolution plan.
The Tribunal noted that under the resolution plan, any homebuyer who failed to file claims or whose claims were rejected would lose all rights and interests in the property, and the registered undivided shares (UDS) would be reversed or cancelled. Drawing from authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Ltd v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority, it is binding on all stakeholders. Homebuyers cannot stand outside the resolution plan, and claims not raised timely are extinguished.
Rejecting the respondent's claim of full payment and possession, the Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the payment evidence and absence of acknowledgment in the sale deed. The Tribunal also highlighted that even possession and utility connections in the respondent's name were not supported by documentary proof. The Tribunal further referred to earlier orders dealing with similar cases where homebuyers who took possession without paying dues faced cancellation of allotments.
Consequently, the Tribunal ordered cancellation of the registered sale deed (Doc No.1375/2016) and construction agreement (Doc No.1374/2016) executed in favor of the respondent, with the property vesting back to the corporate debtor free of encumbrances. The respondent was directed to surrender original documents within 30 days. All claims emanating from these documents were declared extinguished. The Sub-Registrar was directed to record cancellation and modifications in the property records.
This judgment reinforces the principle that in CIRP proceedings under the IBC, homebuyers must proactively file their claims within prescribed timelines to safeguard their interests. Failure to do so results in forfeiture of rights, as resolution plans approved by CoC and the Tribunal are final and binding on all parties.
Bottom Line:
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Failure to file claims by homebuyers within stipulated time during CIRP or the 60-day window post-approval of Resolution Plan leads to extinguishment of their claims and cancellation of agreements.
Statutory provision(s):
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Sections 9, 31, 60(5)
