9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1214 - SCH - Insolvency and BankruptcyRefund of the earnest money deposited by the petitioner - It is alleged that the petitioner filed a belated appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which was dismissed on the point of limitation which order remained undisturbed even before the Supreme Court - invocation of writ jurisdiction under 32 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The prayer for tagging has been opposed and it has been submitted that since the petitioner has already lost up to the Supreme Court in the previous round no such indulgence ought to be granted to her. Keeping the issue of the maintainability of the writ petition open, this writ petition it is directed to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 7943 of 2023.
Issues:
1. Refund of earnest money to a home-buyer in a project under RERA. 2. Reclassification of the petitioner as a financial creditor during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 3. Appeal dismissal by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on the point of limitation. 4. Invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 5. Request for tagging the writ petition with a pending Civil Appeal. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a home-buyer in a Gurugram project, sought a refund of earnest money with interest as ordered by RERA. The company entered CIRP, and the Resolution Professional initially accepted the petitioner's claim. However, upon submitting a revised claim in Form F, the petitioner was reclassified as a financial creditor, leading to approval of a scheme by NCLT for partial payment. 2. The petitioner's belated appeal before NCLAT was dismissed on the grounds of limitation, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. Seeking full payment, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to receive the entire accepted amount from the Resolution Professional. 3. Notably, a related Civil Appeal is pending consideration before the Court, and the petitioner requested tagging the writ petition with it. Despite opposition, the Court decided to keep the issue of maintainability open and directed the writ petition to be tagged with the mentioned Civil Appeal, allowing further legal proceedings to be conducted jointly.
|
