2018 (5) TMI 1 - SC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Non-compliance with deposit of ₹ 200 crores - Refund claim by home buyers / allottees - Held that - JAL shall deposit a further sum of ₹ 200 crores in two instalments, as agreed by the Managing Director who is present in Court today. The first instalment of ₹ 100 crores shall be deposited by 15th April 2018 and the second instalment of ₹ 100 crores shall be deposited by 10th May 2018 - Mr. Agrawal, learned amicus curiae shall keep the portal operational. However, the requests of only those persons on the portal who have sought refund, as of today will be considered at this stage No demand towards outstanding or future instalments shall be raised by the developer to the flat buyers who have, as of today, expressed the option to obtain refund. The demands raised by the developer in respect of the home buyers who have already opted for refund till today, shall remain stayed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with court orders for depositing funds by the developer.
2. Disbursement of funds to home buyers seeking refunds.
3. Appointment of new counsel for representing home buyers.

Comprehensive Analysis:

1. Compliance with Court Orders:
The Supreme Court noted that the developer had deposited a sum of ?550 crores before the Registry but had not complied with the order to deposit ?2000 crores. As a result, the Court directed the developer to deposit an additional ?200 crores in two instalments. The first instalment of ?100 crores was to be deposited by 15th April 2018, and the second instalment of ?100 crores by 10th May 2018.

2. Disbursement of Funds:
The Court acknowledged that approximately ?1300 crores were required to be refunded to home buyers who had opted for a refund. The Court instructed the amicus curiae to prepare a project-wise chart detailing the number of affected persons in each project and the stage of completion. This information was crucial for the Court to make a decision on the pro-rata disbursement of funds to the home buyers seeking refunds. Additionally, the Court ordered that no demands for outstanding or future instalments should be raised by the developer for those home buyers who had opted for a refund.

3. Appointment of New Counsel:
Due to the inability of the previous counsel to continue representing the home buyers before the Committee of Creditors, the Court appointed a new advocate, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, to take over the role. It was clarified that Mr. Agrawal would be guided by the previous orders of the Court. The matter was scheduled to be listed for further review on 16th April 2018 to ensure compliance by the developer and to decide on the disbursement of funds based on the report submitted by the amicus curiae.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of compliance with its orders by the developer, outlined a plan for the disbursement of funds to home buyers seeking refunds, and appointed new counsel to represent the interests of the affected parties. The Court aimed to ensure transparency and fairness in resolving the issues related to the ongoing legal dispute.