9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner claims to be a financial creditor, claiming a financial debt of Rs. 30,69,000/- from the Corporate Debtor. The basis of the claim emanates from an initial transaction between petitioner/financial creditor with one M/s Maruti Realtors Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of 300 sq. yard plot in a residential project to be developed at Bagpat. The consideration paid by the financial creditor was Rs. 10,50,000/- and the terms of their agreement dated 25.08.2006, provided a scheme for buyback. Since M/s Maruti Realtors failed to develop and deliver the proposed property within the stipulated period of 24 months, the petitioner agreed to co-opt for an IT commercial complex being developed by the Corporate Debtor in lieu of the consideration given to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self to be a financial creditor. To substantiate the allegations of assured returns, he has filed his Form 26AS of the Income Tax to show that in acknowledgment of the outstanding liability towards payment of the interest, the Corporate Debtor had been deducting the TDS and depositing the same under Section 194A (interest other than securities). The post-dated cheques given in discharge of the interest liability towards the assured returns were dishonoured upon presentation for which a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was served not only on the Corporate Debtor and its Directors but also on M/s Maruti Realtors, the initial entity to have entered into the transactions. 4. It is also submitted that in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d giving rise to novation of contracts. The last contractual obligation arose from agreement dated 26.06.2014 wherein it was agreed to settle the dispute in the sum of Rs. 30,69,000/-, which included not only the booking amount paid by the petitioner, but also included compensation and charges for commitment, services rendered, appreciation etc. The case of the petitioner was one for purchase of any immovable property to be developed and for which assured returns were undertaken to be given. The Principal Bench, in the matter of Nikhil Mehta & Sons and others Vs. M/s AMR Infrastructures Ltd. has already elucidated that the liability towards assured returns in matters of booking commercial flats would not fall within the definition of a fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s termed as interest under Section 194A of the I.T. Act, for the period till the property is developed and handed over, it would not acquire the status of a financial debt as it is not money loaned to be recovered with interest.
6. In view of the facts of the case, this Bench is of the opinion that the aforesaid transaction between the parties would not fall within the definition of a "financial debt" so as to invoke Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor.
7. The right of the petitioner shall not be prejudiced on account of the observations made in the order, and it would be open to him to seek redressal of his grievance before an appropriate forum.
8. Petition Rejected. No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
