9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 849 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyRefund of money paid for the allotment of a house - whether the IRP or the RP, as the case may be, is entitled to refund the money to any of the allottees during the CIRP period? - HELD THAT - The CIRP of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) was going on when the Appellant submitted his request for refund. According to the provisions of IBC, the claim of the Appellant shall be settled in accordance with relevant provision in the approved Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor. A perusal of the Impugned Order makes it clear that it was passed by the Adjudicating Authority during the currency of the CIRP and the prayer of Appellant for full refund, while the CIRP was going on, was declined - in view of the fact that now the Resolution Plan of the Jaypee Infratech Limited approved by the Committee of Creditors is pending approval of the Learned Adjudicating Authority, it is clear that the Impugned Order has lost relevance. The Appellant will be entitled to receive his rightful dues as contained in the Resolution Plan once it is approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Impugned Order under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for refund of amount deposited for flat. 2. Transfer of appeal to Supreme Court for hearing with similar petitions. 3. Claim for refund submitted before cut-off date as per Supreme Court order. 4. Appellant's request for full refund during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 5. Disposal of appeal after Supreme Court decision and pending Resolution Plan approval. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, regarding the refund of the amount deposited for a flat in a project. The Appellant, a senior citizen, sought a refund which was denied during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period, citing it as a preferential payment not allowed by law. 2. The Appellant requested the transfer of the appeal to the Supreme Court to be heard with similar petitions. The Supreme Court disposed of the Transfer Petition based on a previous decision related to the matter, indicating no further action was required. 3. The Appellant claimed eligibility for a refund before the cut-off date as per a Supreme Court order and provided evidence supporting the claim, including a statement of accounts and an email from the Interim Resolution Professional acknowledging the claim submission. 4. The Appellant, through his counsel, argued for a full refund due to personal circumstances and the incomplete status of the flat. The Respondent's counsel contended that the appeal lost relevance post the Supreme Court decision and with the pending approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. 5. Considering the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and the pending Resolution Plan approval, the Impugned Order was deemed irrelevant. The Appellant's rightful dues as per the Resolution Plan, once approved, will be settled accordingly. However, if refund does not accrue as per the Resolution Plan, the Successful Resolution Applicant was left open to consider the Appellant's request for refund with interest due to his indigent condition. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
