M/S Rps Infrastructure Ltd. vs Mukul Kumar on 11 September, 2023
35. There are two distinguishing feature of the present case with the case
of RPS Infrastructure (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)Mayukh Chakraborthy vs K V Developers Private Limited & Ors on 1 June, 2022
"10. There is no dispute that the liability of the CD
towards the Appellant is clearly reflected in the IM. The
appellant has also filed the claim belatedly and the
CoC has approved the plan but the plan has not been
approved by the Adjudicating Authority so far as it is
pending for its consideration. The appellant has
basically relied upon a decision in the case of Puneet
Kaur (Supra) in which this court has held that "in the
present case there is no denial that details of the
Appellant(s) and other homebuyers, who could not file
their claims has not been reflected in the IM. There
being no detail of claims of the appellant(s), the
resolution applicant could not have been taken any
consideration of the claim of the appellant(s), hence,
resolution plan as submitted by resolution applicant
cannot be faulted".
Section 7 in U.P. Area Development Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Greater Noida Industrial Development ... vs Mr. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Another on 24 November, 2022
32. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Resolution Plan which
was earlier approved on 04.03.2020 has been remitted back by the
Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 05.03.2024 to consider the claim
of NOIDA in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhjit
Singh Soni (supra) and Appeal was filed against the said order before this
Tribunal where this Tribunal categorically held that in view of the order
passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 05.03.2024, the Resolution Plan
dated 04.03.2020 is no more in existence. We have already noticed the
direction of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2024 directing the Adjudicating
Authority to consider the applications of all the Appellants. The most
important feature to be noted in the present case is the fact that Resolution
professional himself has filed the Affidavit before the Adjudicating Authority
containing details of all applicants, including unit no., days of delay in filing
the claim and amount outstanding. The aforesaid table, thus, clearly
amounts to the verification of the claim and on the verification of the record
of the Corporate Debtor, the said chart has been prepared and filed before
the Adjudicating Authority in compliance of the order dated 05.03.2024 and
11.06.2024. Adjudicating Authority did not advert to the above Affidavit filed
by the Resolution Professional and the fact that payments made by the
Appellant against allotment of different units is a fact which is admitted by
CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 170, 357, 359, 361,362,408,460,468,476,494,505,510,511,529,
532,575, 720, 722,728,729 of 2025 58 of 66
the Resolution Professional in its tabular chart.
Section 30 in U.P. Area Development Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
U.P. Area Development Act, 1976
Committee Of Creditors Of Essar Steel ... vs Satish Kumar Gupta on 15 November, 2019
23. The mere fact that the adjudicating authority has
yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan
can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an
endless process. This would result in the reopening of
the whole issue, particularly as there may be other
similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon.
As described above, in Essar Steel [Essar Steel (India)
Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 :
Section 13 in U.P. Area Development Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in U.P. Area Development Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company ... on 19 May, 2015
Appellant in this
case has also relied on the judgments of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs.
M/s. K.V. Developers Private Limited" (supra) and "Rahul Jain vs.
Nilesh Sharma" (supra). This Tribunal after hearing the parties, allowed
the Appeal and has directed the Resolution Professional to give details of
Resolution Applicant who was directed to include the Appellant's claim in
CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 170, 357, 359, 361,362,408,460,468,476,494,505,510,511,529,
532,575, 720, 722,728,729 of 2025 53 of 66
addendum and place it before the CoC for consideration.