9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 78 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyExecution of Conveyance deed - Home Buyers / Commerical property (space) - entitlement to receive the payment of rent as assured in the MoU entered with the allottees and the erstwhile management. Seeking a direction to Adjudicating Authority to execute the Conveyance Deed - HELD THAT - It is relevant to notice that although in the impugned order the said prayer of the Applicant was noticed, considered and rejected, but in the Application which was filed by the Appellant, which has been disposed of, there was no prayer for execution of the Conveyance Deed - When there was no prayer in the Application seeking a direction for execution of the Conveyance Deed, there was no occasion to raise objection to the said prayer by the RP in its reply - even though no specific prayer was made, the Adjudicating Authority was not precluded to consider any prayers made in the Application and to entertain any issue with regard to such prayers. The submission of the Appellant that when the Corporate Debtor is being run as a going concern, it is open for the RP to continue the real estate business of the Corporate Debtor and while running business of real estate Company, execution of Conveyance Deed, payment of rent is part of the said business. There can be no dispute that by virtue of Section 17, 18 and 25, it is duty of the IRP to manage the affairs and take control of the assets over which the Corporate Debtor has ownership rights. The allottees, cannot as a right claim execution of Conveyance Deed, as has been prayed in the present case before the Adjudicating Authority. The RP, who is running the business of the Corporate Debtor is the best person to take a decision as to what part of the business of the Corporate Debtor can be carried out. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that the rights of allotees cannot be affected in the CIRP as their interest is to be appropriately preserved and protected, but in what manner, the rights of homebuyers are to be protected and preserved is an issue, which depends on facts of each case and nature and function, which is carried out by the RP, who is vested with the management. Direction issued in the case of in Alok Sharma 2022 (6) TMI 925 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI to execute the Sale Deed has to confine to the facts of the said case and cannot be relied in the present case. Whether Appellant is entitled to receive the payment of rent as assured in the MoU entered with the allottees and the erstwhile management? - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the statement of the RP that rent received in respect of the units allotted to Applicants has been kept in Fixed Deposit and would be disbursed in accordance with law. The above statement of RP recorded in the impugned order amply protect the interest of the allottees. How the amount received during the CIRP from the shops allotted to the Appellant is a question, which depends on the ultimate decision of the Adjudicating Authority in the CIRP and during the currency of CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error, in not granting prayer of the Appellant to make the payment of entire amount received against the shops allotted to the Appellant - The above order of the Adjudicating Authority amply protects the interest of the Appellant and there are no infirmity in the said order, warranting interference in this Appeal. Thus, no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Execution of the Conveyance Deed. 2. Entitlement to receive payment of rent as assured in the MoU. Summary: Issue 1: Execution of the Conveyance Deed The Appellant, an allottee of commercial space by Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order dated 19.12.2023 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which rejected their applications seeking a direction to execute the Conveyance Deed. The Appellant argued that they had paid about 95% of the amount and were ready to pay the balance for the execution of the Conveyance Deed. The NCLT had earlier noted that the RP initiated a Forensic Audit to verify titles before taking further steps. The Appellant relied on a previous order dated 31.08.2020, which directed the RP to verify claims and declare ownership. The RP contended that the Appellant was not entitled to the Conveyance Deed as the prayer was not initially made in the applications, and the amount due was kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts to be disbursed as per the Adjudicating Authority's orders. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority did not err in rejecting the prayer for the Conveyance Deed, as the RP is responsible for managing the Corporate Debtor's assets and business, including deciding on contract performance during CIRP. Issue 2: Entitlement to Receive Payment of Rent The Appellant sought payment of rent for the commercial units as per the MoU, which was not paid after the initiation of CIRP. The RP argued that the rent was paid till June 2018, over a year before CIRP commenced, and the arrangement was not in force at the time of CIRP initiation. Moreover, the rent received from lessees was less than the agreed amount in the MoU. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority recorded the RP's statement that the rent received was kept in Fixed Deposit and would be disbursed in accordance with law. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority's order protected the Appellant's interests and did not warrant interference, as the ultimate decision on rent disbursement would depend on the CIRP's outcome. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order, and upheld the decision to reject the execution of the Conveyance Deed and defer rent payment decisions until the appropriate stage in the CIRP.
|
