Verified and Published Homebuyer Claims Must Be Honoured with Possession under Resolution Plans: Supreme Court in Amit Nehra v. Pawan Kumar Garg (2025 INSC 1086)

Introduction

In Amit Nehra & Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors., 2025 INSC 1086, the Supreme Court of India (per Sanjay Kumar, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.) clarified a pivotal question in real estate insolvencies under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): how should a homebuyer’s claim be treated under an approved resolution plan when the claim was verified and incorporated by the Resolution Professional (RP) in the published list of creditors before the Adjudicating Authority’s approval, albeit after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved the plan?

The case arises from the insolvency of M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (an IREO Group company) and the IREO Rise (Gardenia) residential project at Mohali. The appellants, bona fide homebuyers who had paid nearly the entire sale consideration for their apartment, sought specific performance—execution of the conveyance and possession—rather than a reduced refund under the “belated claims” category in the resolution plan. The NCLT and NCLAT had rejected their request and confined them to a 50% refund of principal under Clause 18.4(xi) of the plan. The Supreme Court set aside those orders, laying down a principled framework for the treatment of verified homebuyer claims in CIRP.

Key issues

Whether a homebuyer whose claim is verified by the RP and included in the published list of creditors can be relegated to the resolution plan’s residual “belated claims” clause (50% principal refund) because the claim email was sent after the CoC approved the plan.
What legal effect attaches to the RP’s verification and publication of a creditor’s claim during CIRP, particularly for homebuyers.
Proper interpretation of Clause 18.4 of the approved resolution plan, which differentiates between verified/admitted claims and unverified/ uninformed claims.

Parties

Appellants: Amit Nehra and another, homebuyers of Apartment No. GBD-00-001 in IREO Rise (Gardenia), Mohali.
Respondents: Pawan Kumar Garg and others, including the Resolution Professional and Successful Resolution Applicants (One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and APM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.).
Corporate Debtor: M/s Puma Realtors Private Limited (IREO Group).

Procedural timeline (abridged)

2010–2011: Apartment booked; Buyer's Agreement dated 27.05.2011. Total price: Rs. 60,06,368/-. Paid: Rs. 57,56,684/-. Possession due: 27.11.2013 (not delivered).
17.10.2018: CIRP admitted by NCLT (CP(IB) No. 934 (PB) of 2018). 22.10.2018: Public announcement inviting claims.
11.01.2019: Appellants assert physical Form CA submission at Mohali office (disputed by RP).
23.08.2019: CoC approves resolution plan of the Successful Resolution Applicants.
31.01.2020: RP emails creditors to resubmit claims due to incomplete records.
07.02.2020: Appellants resubmit claim by email.
30.04.2020: RP publishes list of financial creditors; Appellants’ claim admitted at Serial No. 636 for Rs. 57,56,684/-.
01.06.2021: NCLT approves resolution plan.
26.07.2023 (NCLT) and 10.01.2025 (NCLAT): Relief denied; appellants treated under Clause 18.4(xi) (50% refund).
09.09.2025: Supreme Court allows appeal; orders conveyance and possession within two months.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that once a homebuyer’s claim is verified by the Resolution Professional and incorporated in the published list of creditors, the claim “acquires full legal recognition within the CIRP process.” Such a claimant cannot be pushed into the resolution plan’s residual clause for unverified or uninformed claims merely because the claim email followed CoC approval. On the plan’s own terms, verified and admitted allottees must be dealt with under the clauses that provide for honouring the allotment, including handover of possession and execution of the conveyance (Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a)), not the reduced 50% refund regime under Clause 18.4(xi).

The Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders and directed the respondents to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession of the allotted apartment within two months.

Analysis

Precedents cited and their influence

The Supreme Court relied on the NCLAT’s decision in Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 245, which emphasised that even where certain homebuyers could not file claims, if those liabilities were reflected in the corporate debtor’s records, they ought to be included in the information memorandum and appropriately addressed in the resolution plan. The NCLAT in Puneet Kaur observed that non-consideration of claims reflected in the records leads to “inequitable and unfair resolution.”

“…claims of those homebuyers, who could not file their claims, but whose claims were reflected in the record of the corporate debtor, ought to have been included… Non-consideration of such claims… leads to inequitable and unfair resolution…”

Building on this reasoning, the Supreme Court underscored that the RP’s publication of the list of financial creditors is a statutory act and cannot be treated as a hollow formality. Here, the RP had gone beyond mere reflection in records—he had verified and admitted the appellants’ claim and published it at Serial No. 636. That admission solidified the appellants’ status and triggered the plan’s treatment for verified allottees.

The judgment also noted Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2023, Paramjeet Kaur & Anr. v. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., which had been dismissed on 25.03.2025. The Court, however, rejected an interlocutory application premised on that dismissal, thereby indicating that Paramjeet Kaur neither controlled nor altered the outcome in the present appeal on its distinct facts and reasoning.

Legal reasoning: Why the residual “belated claims” clause did not apply

The resolution plan’s Clause 18.4 delineated different buckets for homebuyer claims:

Clause 18.4(ii): Where the claim has been filed and admitted by the RP and an allotment letter exists, the claim is to be honoured in full.
Clause 18.4(vi)(a): Sets out the payment/handover mechanics for existing allottees, including conveyance and possession.
Clause 18.4(xi): A residuary treatment applicable where no claim was filed; or if filed, not verified by the RP; or if verified, not informed to the Resolution Applicant. Such allottees were to receive only 50% refund of principal.
Clause 18.4(xix): Belated claims filed between submission of the plan and its approval by the Adjudicating Authority are to be dealt with “in the manner elucidated above and relevant to their case.”

The Court isolated two pivotal facts:

On 07.02.2020, the appellants resubmitted their claim by email in response to the RP’s 31.01.2020 request (necessitated by incomplete records).
On 30.04.2020, the RP verified and admitted the claim and published it in the creditor list at Serial No. 636 for Rs. 57,56,684/-—well before the NCLT approved the plan on 01.06.2021.

On these admitted facts, the appellants’ case could not be squeezed into Clause 18.4(xi). They had filed a claim; the RP had verified and admitted it; and by inclusion in the published list, the RA stood constructively informed. Therefore, the applicable treatment under the plan was Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a), i.e., conveyance and possession (or equivalent performance), not a reduced refund. Treating such a verified claimant as “belated/unverified” would, in the Court’s words, “obliterate” the plan’s carefully drawn distinction, and would amount to a misapplication, not enforcement, of the plan.

The Court also clarified that the factual dispute about an alleged physical filing on 11.01.2019 at the Mohali office was ultimately immaterial because the decisive legal effects flowed from the undisputed verification and publication on 30.04.2020. In other words, the case did not turn on proving an earlier physical filing, but on the RP’s later verification and formal recognition of the claim within CIRP before plan approval by the Adjudicating Authority.

Finally, the Court acknowledged the broader equity considerations in real estate insolvency: homebuyers often pay substantial sums far in advance. Relegating such a verified allottee to a residual refund clause would cause “unfair and unwarranted prejudice,” contrary to the object of the IBC framework for real estate projects.

Impact and prospective significance

This decision has immediate and systemic implications for real estate CIRPs and beyond:

Legal effect of RP’s verification/publication: Verification and inclusion in the published creditor list give a homebuyer’s claim “full legal recognition” within CIRP. RAs and adjudicating fora must treat such claimants under plan provisions applicable to verified claims.
Boundary between CoC approval and AA approval: Even if a claim is verified after CoC approval but before the Adjudicating Authority’s approval, the plan’s own clauses (like 18.4(xix)) require appropriate treatment “relevant to their case,” i.e., as verified, not as residual/unverified.
Constraining the residual clause: Clause 18.4(xi)-type provisions cannot be used as a catch-all to diminish entitlements of claimants whose claims have, in fact, been verified and communicated. The category is confined to those who did not file, were not verified, or whose verification was not communicated.
RP’s statutory role is substantive: The published creditor list is not a procedural nicety. It informs plan implementation and binds how claimants are treated at execution stage.
Plan implementation obligations: Where the plan itself provides for possession/conveyance for verified allottees, courts will compel specific performance against the RA, rather than permit a fallback to refund schedules intended for genuinely belated/unverified cases.
Consumer protection within IBC: The judgment fortifies the pro-homebuyer orientation in real estate insolvency by prioritising possession for verified allottees over cash refunds, aligning with the legislative design that treats homebuyers as financial creditors.

Practically, RPs must maintain rigorous claim verification and publication protocols; RAs must calibrate implementation to the evolving verified creditor base up to AA approval; and adjudicating authorities should resist mechanically labeling post-CoC but pre-AA verified claims as “belated.”

Complex Concepts Simplified

CIRP: The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is a time-bound process under the IBC to resolve a distressed company. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), later RP, invites, verifies, and collates creditor claims; a CoC evaluates and votes on a resolution plan; the NCLT (Adjudicating Authority) approves it.
Homebuyers as financial creditors: Homebuyers are treated as financial creditors in real estate CIRPs and typically submit claims in Form CA (as a class of creditors) for verification by the RP.
Verification and admission of claims: The RP examines documents supporting a claim. Once verified and admitted, the claim is reflected in the published list of creditors. This list is a statutory output of the RP’s functions and shapes plan implementation.
“Belated” vs “verified” claims in plans: Resolution plans often create differentiated treatment:
- Verified and admitted claims: Usually entitled to the substantive performance contemplated (e.g., conveyance and possession for allottees).
- Belated/unverified/unknown claims: Subject to limited or residual relief (e.g., partial refunds on extended timelines) because they were not accounted for during plan formulation.
CoC approval vs AA approval: CoC approval adopts a plan within the creditor committee; AA (NCLT) approval makes the plan binding under Section 31. Claims verified after CoC approval but before AA approval still need appropriate treatment consistent with the plan’s own provisions dealing with such timing.
Specific performance in real estate CIRP: For verified allottees, courts may order execution of the conveyance deed and handover of possession when the plan so contemplates, rather than relegating them to cash refunds.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Amit Nehra fortifies a clear and workable rule: once a homebuyer’s claim is verified by the RP and incorporated in the published list of creditors before the Adjudicating Authority’s approval, such a claimant must receive the plan’s full treatment for verified claims—typically possession and conveyance—not the diminished remedy designed for residual/unverified claims. The RP’s publication of the creditor list carries substantive legal weight and cannot be ignored at the implementation stage.

By setting aside the NCLT and NCLAT’s contrary conclusions, the Court restored fidelity to the plan’s internal taxonomy (verified vs residual claims) and advanced the IBC’s goal of equitable, practicable resolution in real estate insolvencies. Going forward, this judgment will guide RPs, RAs, and tribunals to respect verified homebuyer claims and to avoid mechanical resort to “belated claim” clauses where the record shows proper verification and publication within CIRP.

Key takeaways

Verification and publication by the RP confer full legal recognition on a homebuyer’s claim during CIRP.
Post-CoC but pre-AA verified claims must be treated as verified under the plan; residual 50% refund clauses do not apply.
Adjudicating fora should enforce specific performance (conveyance and possession) for verified allottees where the plan provides for it.
RPs must maintain rigorous claim-verification processes; RAs must align implementation with the verified creditor list.
The judgment strengthens homebuyer protections within IBC without undermining the plan’s finality—rather, it insists on applying the plan correctly.