9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he main Company Petition cannot be directed to consider the scheme of Arrangement proposed by the Corporate Debtor. On an application filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, this Adjudicating Authority merely has to ascertain existence of financial debt and its default. The issue of maintainability has already been concluded by Hon ble Supreme Court. The submissions of the applicants, asserting that the admission of the company petition would severely impact and prejudice the rights of the applicant, leading to the corporate death of the company, cannot be entertained because there are no provisions in the IB Code that provide for intervention by a third party, especially at this stage where arguments of the Financial Creditor have concluded, and arguments of the Corporate Debtor are in progress and soon to be concluded. Furthermore, this application is filed by companies holding units in the Corporate Debtor project, whereas the main company petition is filed by individual allottees whose interests will also be prejudiced if we entertain the present application because it will lead to unnecessary delay. The present application also appears to be similarly motivated, filed with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicant in Ivn. P/12/2024 has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) Pass an order allowing the applicant to intervene in the captioned matter. (b) Pass an order keeping in abeyance the proceedings under CP (IB) 682/2021 during the pendency of Section 230 petition filed by Respondent No 6 and further kindly allow the applicant to consider the scheme of Compromise and arrangement filed by Respondent No 6 in a separate meeting of allotted to be ordered by this Hon'ble Tribunal. (c) Pass such other and further order as this Tribunal may deem fit. 3. The matter relating to issue of notice was reserved in the Applications bearing number Ivn. P/11/2024, Ivn. P/12/2024 by this Adjudicating Authority on 15.02.2024. The relevant extract of daily order dated 15.02.2024 is reproduced below: - We have heard the arguments advanced by the Intervenors as well as the Respondents. The Counsel for the Intervenors have pressed for issuance of notice. The Counsel for the Financial Creditor has strongly opposed issuance of notice and pressed for dismissal of these applications at the threshold on the ground that there is no provision in the IB Code for intervention at pre-admissions stage of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese challenges, it is asserted that the Project's development has progressed smoothly by the Respondent No.6 and substantial portion of Phase 1 has been completed, which is evident from the fact that the Company was able to construct and complete structural work in 34 floors in a tower. iv. That the Applicant has been keeping a watch on the proceedings before this Tribunal and status of the on-going disputes on the ownership of the land. The Applicant is concerned that if the Respondent No.6 is admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, there will not be any resolution of the company and it will lead to liquidation of the company and the interests of the Applicant will be seriously prejudiced who are seeking development and construction of the Project v. That in the present case, there are following scenarios which are available: A. Completion of the Project once the title disputes pending adjudication are decided B. Entire refund of the principal amount paid by allottees along-with some other additional payment under Section 230 Scheme C. In case of Resolution Plan, in the present case, considering the on-going land dispute, RERA dispute it is unlikely that any res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be willing to develop the Project on a land which has a disputed title x. That the admission of the captioned company petition would severely impact and prejudice the rights and interests of the Applicant who is seeking development and construction of the Project, as it would lead to the corporate death of the Company. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 7. We have heard the submissions made by the applicants as well as Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor. The present Application has been filed by the Applicants seeking primarily three main relief(s) a. Impleadment of Applicants in the main Company Petition filed u/s 7, IBC, 2016 bearing number IB-682/PB/2021 b. Giving an opportunity to the Applicants and all other allottees of the Project to consider the scheme of compromise and arrangement filed under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 proposed by the CD c. Not to pass final orders in CP IB No. 682 of 2021 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Financial Creditor appeared before this Tribunal and strongly objected against the present application and pressed for dismissing the present application since this Adjudicating Authority had already dismissed the application filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Project. The Counsel for the Applicants has submitted that the Applicants are necessary and proper party to the present proceedings, as the outcome of the present petition shall have direct bearing on the interest of the Applicants. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicants have submitted that all the Applicants together have invested an amount, in excess of 21.5 crore in the project of the Corporate Debtor. It is clear from the submissions of the Counsel that the Applicants are strategic investors in the project, who will ultimately sell the units to interested buyers. The Section 7 Petitioners are allottees of the units. The Applicants in their application has sought for dismissal of the present Section 7 application and also such other and further reliefs. We have also considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. Having considered the stage of the matter and keeping the objects of IBC in view and as the preamble clearly says that timely resolution of CIRP process is one of the prime objects of the Code, the present application by the strategic investors seeking intervention in the matter and the relief of dismissal of Section 7 applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissal of IB-682/PB/2021 which a Section 7 Application. The present Application appears to be misleading, filed only for the purpose of delaying the adjudication of IB682/PB/2021. The applicant has failed to appreciate that the intent behind classification of homebuyers as Financial Creditor by the legislature was to enable homebuyers to participate in the insolvency resolution process in a constructive and egalitarian manner. The Applicant is insisting on dismissal of the Section 7 Petition even after the same has been held maintainable by the Hon ble NCLAT vide order dated 17.11.2023 and the Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.12.2023 has held that the issue of maintainability shall stand concluded by the order dated 17.11.2023 insofar as the Adjudicating Authority and NCLAT are concerned. The malafide intention of the Applicant to delay the adjudication of the Section 7 Petition is also evident from the fact that the Applicant never raised this contention of affidavits being forged during the adjudication of maintainability of the Section 7 Petition neither before this Adjudicating Authority nor before the Hon ble NCLAT. 11. Further, prior to admission of Section 7 Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
