Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)
Mohit Arora vs Manish Aneja & Ors on 29 August, 2025 cites

Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs Abhishek Khanna on 11 January, 2021

4. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned counsel for the Appellant in support of the Appeal submits that the Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting Section 7 application. There was no default on the part of the Corporate Debtor as per the agreement between the parties. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to Clause 3.1 and 3.5 of the Flat Buyer's Agreement and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1163 of 2024 6 submitted that offer of possession within four years was subject to force majeure circumstances, intervention of statutory authorities, requirement of Occupation Certificate and allottees making timely payment of instalments. It is submitted that the present is a case where under the orders of the statutory authorities including orders of the Court and Tribunal, for 89 days there was stay on the construction. It is submitted that the possession could have been offered to the allottees only after receipt of the Occupation Certificate. No Occupation Certificate having yet been received, there can be no offer of possession. The Adjudicating Authority had not appropriately considered the Clause 3.1 and 3.5 of the Flat Buyer's Agreement. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has unduly relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors., 2021 (2) SCR 1, which judgment is in context of Consumer Protection Act and was on the deficiency of service, which is a concept applicable to Consumer Protection Act and not to the I&B Code. It is submitted that the agreement between the parties have to be read as it is and allottees for discrepancy of service and for other reliefs are free to take proceedings before the State RERA Authorities and other Authorities but unless there is default on part of the Corporate Debtor proceedings for insolvency commencement cannot be initiated against the Corporate Debtor. Only a handful of allottees (initially there were 172 Applicants) have filed the application for putting the Company into insolvency whereas there are 976 units and majority of the homebuyers are not in favour of the insolvency. It is submitted that in the insolvency of a real estate project seldom there is Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1163 of 2024 7 resolution and completion of construction. It is submitted that the timeframe for offering possession was subject to timely payment of instalment by the unitholders. Before the Adjudicating Authority, the Corporate Debtor has brought on record details of outstanding amount of various unitholders who were in default and payment of their consideration. Learned counsel for the Appellant has referred to the details of 56 allottees amongst the Applicants who has initiated the Section 7 application, where according to the Appellant, there are huge amount of default. It is submitted that dues with reference to 27 unitholders are more than Rs.1 Lakh. It is submitted that timely payment by the allottees was relevant consideration for determining default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority has not adverted to the said pleading, thus, the conclusion of the Adjudicating Authority that there is default in not offering possession by the Corporate Debtor is not in accordance with law. It is submitted that the period of 89 days counted from 22.01.2020, it falls within the prohibited period under Section 10A, hence, the Section 7 application ought not to have been entertained. Corporate Debtor has placed orders passed by Court, Tribunal and Statutory Authority whereby construction was halted for 89 days. Learned counsel, however, submitted that Appellant proceed on assumption that threshold as allowed to allottees is fulfilled and no arguments are being addressed on said issue, although several of the Respondents who has initiated proceeding under Section 7 were themselves in default. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed an application IA No.6177 of 2024 seeking direction of reverse insolvency Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1163 of 2024 8 process under which the Appellant can complete the construction under the supervision of the IRP. It is submitted that the Appellant has given proposal to the allottees for construction and most of the allottees agreed and given consent letters in favour of the Corporate Debtor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 189 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Flat Buyers Association Winter ... vs Umang Realtech Private Limited on 24 March, 2023

26. There can be no dispute to the proposition that that in several cases this Court has directed for completion of the project under the Reverse Insolvency Process. Judgment of this Tribunal in "Flat Buyers Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1163 of 2024 25 Association of Winter Hills - 77, Gurgaon vs. Umang Realtech P. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1199" has been relied. The most of the cases where Reverse Insolvency was directed are cases where all stakeholders were substantially agreed with the proposal of construction. Present is a case where Applicants who has initiated proceedings under Section 7 have objected to the prayers made by the Promoter to permit them to carry on the construction.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1