9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 839 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor or not - HELD THAT - From the allotment letter, demand notice, allotment letter and receipt, we find that there is a joint venture between 'M/s. Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd.'- and 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited' and, therefore, the Appellant cannot take the plea that 'Homestead' is not a 'Corporate Debtor'. M/s. Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) reached agreement jointly with 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited' have entered into the development agreement with 'M/s. Raheja Developers Limited' on 24th July, 2012 and for all purposes it is a joint venture with 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited' who is a subsidiary company and reached agreement with Respondent, but asked to pay the amount to 'M/s. Golden Peacock Residence Private Limited', we hold that the application under Section 7 against 'M/s. Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd.'- ('Corporate Debtor') is maintainable. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Admittance of application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the National Company Law Tribunal. 2. Dispute regarding the existence of an agreement between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. 3. Joint venture agreement between the Corporate Debtor and its subsidiary for land development. 4. Maintainability of the application under Section 7 against the Corporate Debtor. Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the admission of an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the National Company Law Tribunal. The Financial Creditor filed the application against the Corporate Debtor, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to the appeal by the Shareholder against this decision. 2. The dispute in the case centered on the existence of an agreement between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant argued that there was no such agreement between them, stating that the Financial Creditor was actually an allottee of another company. However, the Respondent presented records, including an agreement between different parties, to establish the connection between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. 3. The judgment also delved into the joint venture agreement between the Corporate Debtor and its subsidiary for land development. It was noted that the Corporate Debtor and its subsidiary had entered into a joint venture agreement with another developer, which led to the Financial Creditor receiving a Demand Notice on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. 4. Lastly, the issue of maintainability of the application under Section 7 against the Corporate Debtor was addressed. The Tribunal found that the application was maintainable due to the joint venture between the Corporate Debtor and its subsidiary, despite the Financial Creditor being asked to pay the amount to the subsidiary. The judgment emphasized the interconnected nature of the entities involved in the agreement. In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the appeal, highlighting the joint venture agreement between the Corporate Debtor and its subsidiary, which established the maintainability of the application under Section 7.
|
