9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I) in Company Application No. 424 of 2023 filed by Mr. Lalatendu Swain & Or and Company Application No. 434 of 2023 filed by Mr. Prakasarao V.S. Yadavilli respectively. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has rejected their application vide which claims were raised by them in Claim Form-C before the Claim Management Advisor as nonmaintainable. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeals have been preferred by the Appellants. Since, on points of facts and law and also the grounds on which both the appeals have been premised are common, it would suffice to confine ourselves to the pleadings made in Company Appeal No. 424 of 2023 to decide both these appeals at hand. 2. The salient points in the present facts of the case which require to be noticed for consideration of the matter before us is that the Appellants had entered into an Agreement for Sale ("Agreement" in short) with Maytas Property Ltd. ("Maytas" in short) on 15.11.2007. Subsequently, on 24.07.2008 the Appellants and Maytas executed a Registered Sale Deed and an Agreement for Construction (hereinafter called "Construction Agreement") in terms of which Maytas was to complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 020 that the claim items needed adjudication. 5. It was vehemently contended by the Appellants that it was wrong on the part of the CMA to contend that the claim filed by the Appellants required adjudication by a court of law. While conceding the fact that the CMA whose functions are akin to that of Resolution Professional and hence not vested with adjudicatory powers, nevertheless, the CMA cannot absolve itself of the responsibility of verifying the claims. Since the claims staked by the Appellants with regard to damages on account of delay in granting possession is clearly provided for in Clause 7(d) the Agreement, this item would not have required any further adjudication. Furthermore, the claim was in the nature of liquidated damages and hence there was no requirement for the Appellant to institute any proceeding before an appropriate Civil Court to determine the extent of damages. The Adjudicating Authority has also failed to appreciate the documents produced by the Appellants to demonstrate that the sum of money spent on rent by the Appellants on account of delay in granting possession amounted to damages. It was also contended that the Adjudicating Authority had also errone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent and perused the records carefully. 9. The short point to be answered is whether in the facts of the present case the decision of the CMA to place these claims in the category of "put under adjudication" was justified. 10. At the very outset, it may be useful to go through the relevant clauses contained in the Agreement which provisioned for damages. The relevant clauses read as under: Agreement of Sale 7. Construction a. The Developer and Land Owners assures to complete the construction of the Scheduled Apartment within 20 months from the date of execution of this Agreement and subject to the availability of steel or other construction material and/or any other causes beyond the control of the Developer. b. Provided that the Developer shall have a further grace period of three (3) months. c. ..... d. In the event of any further delay beyond the time stipulated in Clause 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c), the Developer and the Land Owner shall pay the Purchaser an amount of Rs 5/- per sft of contracted built-up area for every month of delay up to a maximum of 8 months. This amount shall be adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed by you for the alternate accommodation, we understand that there is no document entered into between HCPL and the you pursuant to which HCPL has undertaken to reimburse such rent. So there is no direct commitment to pay the rent. In relation to your claim on the same in the form of losses caused to you, the same is a claim that would be required to be adjudicated upon. We do not have the powers to adjudicate upon a claim under he claims management process. 2. Car parking refund..... 3. Refund of Service Tax.... 4. Further, in respect of your claim for non-provision of sky lounges, nonprovision of laundry area, mental agony and interest on delayed payment. Please note that any problem or dispute in relation to the commitments provided by HCPL, is a claim with regard to deficiency of service and other components needs to be led with evidence, and be adjudicated upon. As the claims management advisor, we are not in a position to adjudicate over claims. We merely have the power and authority to verify claims, and establish the existence of debt...." From the above reply it is clear that the CMA has categorically stated that the reimbursement of rent was not provided for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, we do not find it 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. Any attempt made towards assuming any sort of adjudicatory jurisdiction would have made the CMA breach the boundaries set by the statutory framework of IBC for a CMA to only verify and collate claims and does not encompass the adjudication of claims. Since the relevant component of claim required adjudication, the CMA had correctly classified the claims in the "put under adjudication" category. In the light of the above, we also do not see any reason to differ with the findings of the Adjudicating Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
