Speculative investors and multiple-unit allottees qualify as financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC.

The Corporate Debtor (COPL) was admitted into CIRP on 27.02.2023.

The Appellant, a suspended director, filed I.A. No. 2105/2023 challenging the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), specifically seeking the exclusion of Respondent No. 2 (Accord) and Respondent No. 3 (Mohali Builders).

The Appellant contended these entities were "promoters" or "speculative investors" under marketing agreements from 2009–2012, rather than genuine "allottees" or financial creditors.

The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Chandigarh) dismissed the application on 02.07.2025, leading to this appeal.

Whether Respondents No. 2 and 3, having entered into agreements for bulk purchase and marketing rights, qualify as "allottees" and "financial creditors" under the IBC.

Whether the definition of "Promoter" under the RERA Act, 2016, can be imported into the IBC to exclude a creditor from the CoC.

Whether companies "struck off" from the Register of Companies (ROC) are barred from filing claims in a CIRP.

The court primarily applied Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC, which includes amounts raised under real estate projects as financial debt, read with Explanation (i) and (ii) which define "allottee" by referencing the RERA Act.

It relied on Regulation 8A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, allowing the existence of debt to be proved via allotment letters or sale agreements rather than just audited balance sheets.

The Tribunal applied the precedent from *Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. UOI*, establishing that any allottee who pays money for a unit is a financial creditor.

The Tribunal applied the precedent from *Everlike Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohit Goyal*, which clarified that the "speculative investor" status is only relevant at the Section 7 admission stage, not for the validation of claims.

Furthermore, Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, was applied to hold that struck-off companies retain the right to realize dues.

The Tribunal reasoned that the IBC is a self-contained code and only imports the definitions of "allottees" and "real estate projects" from RERA; it refused to import the RERA definition of "promoter" to disqualify creditors.

The court found that despite the "marketing" nomenclature in early agreements, the subsequent "Agreements to Sell" and proof of payment established the Respondents as allottees under Section 5(8)(f).

On the issue of speculative investment, the Tribunal noted that the IBC does not differentiate between an allottee buying for personal use and one buying multiple units for profit.

Regarding the "struck off" status, the court held that under Section 250 of the Companies Act, the corporate entity continues to exist for the limited purpose of discharging liabilities and realizing debts, thus permitting their participation in the CoC.

Finally, the court dismissed the Appellant's challenge to unverified claims, noting that under Regulation 8A, audited balance sheets are not the sole proof of debt.

The appeal was dismissed, and the NCLT’s order was upheld.

Finding the Appellant's conduct to be vexatious and intended to stall the resolution process (where a plan had already achieved 99.21% approval), the Tribunal imposed a cost of ₹5 Lakh on the Appellant, payable to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.