9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not provided for in any document entered into between the Appellants and Maytas and there was no commitment to pay rent to the Appellants. On looking into the clauses of the Agreement also, there are no provision for payment of loss of rent or alternative accommodation rent being the relevant parameter for quantification of damages for delay in construction. Given this backdrop, the CMA was right in asserting that he cannot verify any claim basis rental agreements unilaterally produced by the Appellant when the Agreement did not provide scope for such rental agreements to determine the damages for delayed possession. Under such circumstances, it is not found either unreasonable or unfair on the part of the CMA in having pointed out that any claim premised on the above parameters would fall in the realm of adjudication which would be beyond the limited jurisdiction of the CMA. The CMA clearly did not have the jurisdiction to determine the claim, nor are there any mitigating factors in the IBC or the CIRP Regulations framed thereunder bestowing any such adjudicatory jurisdiction on the CMA. Conclusion - There are no reason to differ with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after a lapse of six years and three months from the due date of completion of 15.07.2009 as per Agreement. Subsequently the Board of Directors of IL FS Ltd. was suspended and M/s Grant Thornton was appointed as Claim Management Advisor ( CMA in short) for the IL FS Ltd. The Appellant filed their principal claim before the CMA of Rs 25,93,498/- and interest of Rs 9,14,048/- which were however rejected by the CMA. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim by the CMA, the Appellant filed Company Application No. 424 of 2023 in Company Petition No. 6368 of 2018 before the Adjudicating Authority. The Company Application was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 12.03.2024 and aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Deepak Biswas, Ld. Advocate for Appellant and Shri Shwetaank Nigam, Ld. Advocate representing Respondent. 4. Making his submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants who are old citizens were put to lot of inconvenience on account of late handing over of their houses, the construction of which was initiated by Maytas. As against assured completion date of 15.07.2009, they recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was required to adopt the principles and methods directed for verification of claims under the IBC. It was submitted that any claimant submitting their claim was required to substantiate the same with relevant proof of claim under Regulation 12 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016( CIRP Regulation in short). It was further added that Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations mandates verification of the status of the claims submitted by creditors and based thereupon maintain a list of creditors alongwith amount claimed by them and the amounts of their claims as admitted. It was contended that the claim of Rs 35,07,546/- included several items which could not have been admitted by the CMA without adjudication. 7. It was contended that the Appellants had sought claim under the heading Loss of Rent which was not provided for in the Agreement as the basis for quantification of the damages. The CMA had also not provided any supporting proof by which the IL FS or Maytas was obligated to reimburse the Appellant by way of rent in relation to any alternative accommodation as a financial loss to the Appellant. Therefore, the CMA was constrained to no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment. We also notice that this Agreement was also between Maytas and the Appellants and IL FS is not a signatory. 11. At this juncture we would like to add that the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants had made a submission that the Appellants while filing the claims before the CMA in June 2020 had gone a little overboard and included other items like car parking space charges, Glass Sky Lounge, laundry area facility, service tax refund etc. which they do not wish to press any further. That being so we will confine ourselves hereinafter only to the issue of damages claimed by the Appellants on account of delay in handing over possession of their houses. 12. When we look at the sequence of events, we find that it is an undisputed fact that handing over of the possession of the property to the Appellants took place in 2015 instead of 20 months from the date of the execution of the Agreement. The Appellants filed their claims before the CMA in Form C only on 29.06.2020 as may be seen at page 216 of Appeal Paper Book ( APB in short) which is as reproduced below: SCHEDULE FORM C PROOF OF CLAIM BY FINANCIAL CREDITORS 4. Total Amount of Claim (Including any interest as at the claim date) Curre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen at page 223 of APB. 15. In their response, the CMA again sent a clarificatory letter explaining how and why the determination of damages would require adjudication as placed at page 224 of APB, the relevant excerpts of which are as reproduced: Sent: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 To: Lalatendu Swain Cc: Vipra Patangia; Rakshit Alva Subject: Re: IL FS claims: HCPL- Lalatendu Swain Dear Sir, . a. Loss of Rent - We have reviewed the Agreement for sale in relation to your claim for compensation for the delay in construction. We understand that this is a specific amount that you would have a right to claim on account of a delay in completion of construction for reasons which are not beyond the normal control of HCPL. Please note that as the claims management advisor we do not have the power to determine the reason for the delay in construction, or whether it was on account of reasons within or outside the normal control of HCPL. In fact, such a determination would require adjudication . 16. Having noted the above we now propose to answer the question whether the decision of the CMA to place these claims in the category of put under adjudication was justified. In terms of the claims management p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
