9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inability to pay due to its financial constraints which arose because of demonetization, Covid-19, and other legal action taken by the Income Tax Department, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, etc. - there is a demand above the threshold limit and the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in paying that demand. As the date of default is 13.02.2020 and this application was filed on 10.03.2022 it is within the limitation. As per section 4 of the Code, this application meets the threshold limit. This application is complete and defect-free. Application admitted - moratorium declared. - CP (IB) 26/MP/2022 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2022 - M. B. Gosavi , Member ( J ) And Kaushalendra Kumar Singh , Member ( T ) For the Appellant : Prveen N. Surange , Ld. Adv For the Respondents : Yogesh Hemnani , Ld. Adv ORDER 1. The instant application is filed by M/s. D.B. Crop (Operational Creditor) through its Assistant General manager (Finance Accounts) Mr. Manish Sharma under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 ('the Code') read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating of Corporate Insolvency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36,000/- (Eleven crores seventy-three lakhs thirty-six thousand) only 22 units were discharged by the Corporate Debtor and that too beyond the agreed time period, the Remaining 19 units aggregating to Rs. 5,25,89,000/- (Five crore twenty-five lakh eighty-nine Thousand) are still not handed over to the Operational Creditor. vi. Despite the clear understanding and constant follow-ups, the Corporate Debtor failed to meet its commitments and paid no heed to the requests of the Operational Creditor, and therefore, the Operational Creditor sent a Legal Notice dated 30.12.2021 to the Corporate Debtor. vii. In response to Legal Notice, the Corporate Debtor had replied and admitted that they are trying to make the remaining payment in respect of the unit not allotted but they deliberately denied the payment of interest in delayed possession of 22 units. viii. The Operational Creditor finally sent a Demand Notice under Section 8 of the Code on 13.01.2022 through speed post to their respective address and the same was also sent through email on 13.01.2022. ix. Following that the Operational Creditor has preferred the present petition under Section 9 of the IBC. 4. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Number of the Corporate Debtor Projects Named Aqua City. The acute financial crisis being faced by the Corporate Debtor the Real Estate Regulatory Authority based on a misinterpretation of legal provisions initiated a suo-moto inquiry without issuing show cause notice and directing freezing of the designated bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor and restraining from allotment/Registry of the units in all the on-going projects the Corporate Debtor is contesting the orders before the Appellate Tribunal to explain the wrongful actions directed by the Ld. Authority based on a misinterpretation of certain provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation Development) Act, 2016. vi. In spite of that, the Corporate Debtor made several attempts to revive its business operations. Due to restraining imposed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the Corporate Debtor was not in a position to repay the loan amounts, rents, salaries, etc. vii. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority due to faulty interpretation of the provision of the Act of 2016 has revoked RERA Registration of two more projects, namely, Aakriti Business Arcade and Aakriti Kolar City in the month of March April 2022. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed its inability to pay due to its financial constraints which arose because of demonetization, Covid-19, and other legal action taken by the Income Tax Department, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, etc. It is further submitted that the decision of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority is still pending before the Appellate Authority/High Court. Be as it may, in the facts of the case, there is a demand above the threshold limit and the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in paying that demand. As the date of default is 13.02.2020 and this application was filed on 10.03.2022 it is within the limitation. As per section 4 of the Code, this application meets the threshold limit. This application is complete and defect-free. Hence, we pass the following orders : ORDER 1. Corporate Debtor of M/s. AG8 Ventures Limited is admitted in CIRP. and the moratorium is declared for prohibiting all of the following in terms of Section 14(1) of the Code. (i) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree, or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel, or other authority; (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
