9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 read with Rule 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent claiming a default of financial debt of Rs. 39,81,993/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Three only). 2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the petition are listed below: (1) The Applicant booked an apartment bearing No. K-1605, 16th Floor, Tower - K, admeasuring 1105 Sq. Ft. (hereinafter referred to as 'The Apartment') in the project 'Mantri Webcity 2B', being developed by the Corporate Debtor at Bengaluru vide 'agreement for construction' dated 27.05.2014 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 72,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven soon. A transfer application was signed by the Applicants dated 02.09.2018, as per which the agreement to sell was to be executed within 30 days from the application. However, the Respondent charged higher price of the changed apartment than the earlier one, which was not accepted by the Applicants and hence no agreement was signed for the same. The Applicant therefore made numerous calls for possession of the apartment K-1605 purchased by them but no effective answer was received by them. (7) Being aggrieved of fraudulent conduct of the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant approached the Karnataka, RERA, Bengaluru Bench and filed a complaint under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 against the Corporate Deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings against a Developer. That a minimum of 100 Homebuyers or 10% of the total number of homebuyer in a project have to jointly file the preferred petition together in order to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a Developer. That the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Respondent has placed reliance on the decision of this Bench in C.P. (IB) No. 01/BB/2021, Mr. David John Jebarsingh and Ors. Vs. M/s. Buoyant Technology Constellations Private Limited, in which similar petition by Homebuyers was dismissed relying on the amendment to section 7 of IBC, 2016. (2) Further, the Respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has inter alia, held that I&B Code, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. 7. In the instant case, we see that the Petitioners have already obtained order from the relevant forum under the RERA Act and the same can be executed before relevant forum. A case under the Code, 2016 is not made out as the petition is clearly an attempt to substitute the recovery mechanism and amounts to forum shopping. Further, since the Petitioner does not meet the minimum threshold of 10% of Financial Creditors of the same class, the petition fails and deserves to be dismissed. 8. Being aware of the above disqualification, the Petitioner has made out a case that it is before this Tribunal basically to seek execution of a decree passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
