2019 (12) TMI 1394 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

CIRP Process - claim was lodged in Form CA as already brought forth on 08.10.2018 and the Resolution Professional acknowledged the said lodging of the claim by an email dated 13.11.2018 - HELD THAT - It is seen that the document bearing 572/2011 is registered with Sub-registrar, T. Nagar, which is sought to be relied upon for the purpose of conveyance of undivided share of land as prescribed in the Schedule of property in the said registered documents. In addition, the Memorandum of Agreement as entered into between the parties dated 15.03.2011 is also sought to be relied on by the Applicant to establish that the monies which are figuring in the respective Sale Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement have been duly paid to the Corporate Debtor, and in the said circumstance, the Claim cannot be rejected and that the payment which is also extracted hereinabove by way of tabulation in Para supra are in relation to the purchase of properties, and hence, it is appropriate that the Applicant should be categorised as 'Home Buyer' and that the Resolution Professional was wrong in not entertaining the Claim as filed under Form CA meant for the Home Buyers. In any case, it is also pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional that in relation to the T Nagar property it is not the asset of the Corporate Debtor presently as the same has been allotted and sold a long time back much prior to the initiation of CIRP. Hence, the claim also seems to suffer from delay and laches on the part of the Applicant in enforcing the claim. In the circumstance, on this count also, the delay on the part of the Applicant to exercise its remedy as against the Corporate Debtor also disentitles the Applicant to lodge the claim. From all the documents filed, it is seen that it is of the year 2011 and if at all any action based on the said documents for consideration is taken, should have been taken within a period of three years from the date of the said agreement which the Applicant has miserably failed. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of a claim of ?25 Lakhs by the Applicant in Form CA under Regulation 8A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
2. Claim made by the Applicant as a Home Buyer in the CIR Process against a Corporate Debtor.
3. Dispute regarding the payment details and documentation provided by the Applicant.
4. Allegations of malafide actions, bias, and lack of evidence against the Resolution Professional.
5. Examination of the genuineness of the Applicant's claim as a Home Buyer.
6. Consideration of the claim's validity based on the nature of the property and the timing of the claim.
7. Determination of whether the Applicant qualifies as a Home Buyer under the I&B Code.
8. Analysis of the delay and laches on the part of the Applicant in enforcing the claim.

Analysis:
1. The Applicant filed an Application aggrieved by the rejection of a ?25 Lakhs claim under Regulation 8A. The claim was made in the capacity of a Home Buyer, supported by detailed payment information and documentation.
2. The CIR Process initiated by an Operational Creditor led to the lodging of the claim against the Corporate Debtor. The claim pertained to a property in T. Nagar, with additional documents requested by the Resolution Professional.
3. Disputes arose regarding the consistency of payment records provided by the Applicant, leading to contentions of non-supporting evidence by the Resolution Professional.
4. Allegations of malafide actions and bias against the Resolution Professional were denied, with the Applicant's motives questioned without substantial evidence.
5. The genuineness of the Applicant's claim as a Home Buyer was examined, with suspicions raised regarding the timing and nature of the claim.
6. The nature of the property and the timing of the claim were crucial factors in determining the validity of the Applicant's claim.
7. The Applicant's qualification as a Home Buyer under the I&B Code was debated, with the Resolution Professional arguing against the categorization.
8. The delay and laches on the part of the Applicant in enforcing the claim were highlighted, leading to the dismissal of the Application due to the stale claim and failure to act within the required timeframe.