9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for R - 1 Advocate Ashish Aggarwal , Advocate Nalin Dhingra , for R - 2 Mr. Gaurav Mitra , Advocate JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These two Appeals have been field against the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by Adjudicating Authority, by which order, IA No.4229 of 2023 and IA No.4089 of 2023 filed by the Appellant were rejected. 2. Facts and issues raised in both the Appeal(s) being similar, we proceed to decide both the Appeal by this common judgment. 3. Facts giving rise to these two Appeal(s) are as follows: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 186 of 2024 (i) Corporate Debtor - M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited allotted unit No. 1GF on 08.03.2010 in the Commercial Office Complex 'City Centre', Mohali to the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 4 Commercial Office Complex 'City Centre', Mohali to the Appellant. On 12.05.2022, Addendum Agreement was executed in respect of basement of Unit No.5GF. The Corporate Debtor offered possession of the Unit 1GF vide letter dated 30.09.2020. However, the Appellant did not take possession of the Unit. (ii) On 07.04.2021, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") commenced against the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant filed his claim on 26.05.2021 as a Financial Creditor. The Resolution Professional ("RP") on 27.05.2021, intimated the Appellant to file his claim in Form-F. The Appellant filed his claim in Form-F on 28.10.2021. The RP sent an email on 02.09.2022 informed the Appellant that claim against Unit 5GF + basement is admitted f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsel for the RP submits that the claim of the Appellant was admitted as per the assured return, which was undertaken by the Corporate Debtor. The claim was revised by the RP and entire assured return was included. It is submitted that the Appellant having been offered possession on 30.09.2020, which possession was not taken, the Appellant was entitled for only assured return, which has already been admitted. The IA filed by Appellant being IA No.4229 of 2023 as well as IA No.4089 of 2023 have rightly been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant is a US passport holder and all proceedings are initiated by his special Power of Attorney holder. It is submitted that the Appeal(s) are being filed by the Appellant with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was offered on 30.09.2020, which was not taken by the Appellant. Partial Completion Certificate dated 14.10.2016, issued by the competent Authority has already been brought on the record. The Appellant although had not accepted possession on 30.09.2020, but allotment having not been disputed, the Appellant is entitled for the Units as well as the amount as per the Resolution Plan, which has been approved on 20.11.2023. The IAs, which have been filed by the Appellant was for further enhancement of the acceptance of the claim, for example, in IA No.4229 of 2023, the Appellant's case is that instead of claim of Rs.41,59,190/- admitted by the RP, he was entitled for admission of the amount of Rs.45,99,190/-. Thus, according to the Appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
