9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms Harshita Aggarwal and Mr. Nikhil Aswani, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr Vishal Hirawat and Mr. Abhishek Devgan, Advocates for RP JUDGEMENT JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) These two appeals are filed against an impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (Bench III) in IA No.5181/2022 and IA(IBC) No.5284/2022 in Company Petition (IB) No.440/ND/2021. 2. On 17.08.2022, the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi (Bench III) allowed application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 of Home Buyers and admitted the Corporate Debtor in CIRP. 3. On 01.09.2022, the appellant filed claim amounting to Rs.10,75,52, 989/- as homebuyer in Form CA via email dated 01.09.2022, with all the supporting d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave filed their claim or not, or filed their claims after 90 days from CIRP but claims have not been admitted by CIRP due to late filing. Notwithstanding the above, if any claim(s) have been rejected/non-admitted by Resolution Professional, the inventory in the name of such allottees shall be deemed to be free inventory and the Resolution Applicant shall have all the exclusive rights to deal with the same. However, if any allottee have preferred to take legal recourse against the decision of RP then RA hereby agrees to abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Court." 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant his applications were disposed of without hearing on merits. A bare perusal of IA 5284/2022 would show it was for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Logix City Developers Pvt Ltd was in the nature of marketing and profit sharing arrangement. 11. It is argued by the appellant though vide order dated 04.11.2022 the Ld. NCLT had directed the RP to take into account all claims filed alongwith the IAs and to communicate the decision to the appellant within seven days and to file a copy too, but the applications were kept pending and were listed alongwith other IAs. 12. Admittedly the decision was taken by the RP vide his order dated 10.11.2022 rejecting the claim of the appellant. It is argued by the RP the appellant did not file any appeal against the order dated 10.11.2022 and per Section 42 of the IBC it ought to have been filed within 14 days. 13. Section 42 of the IBC is as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2023 despite the decision dated 10.11.2022 of the RP on record, and parties were even given liberty to file written synopsis alongwith case laws. However, if one peruse the impugned order the arguments made in IA No.5284/2022 as well as in IA No.5181/2022 were never discussed and such applications were , disposed off in terms of orders passed on 13.09.2023 by the Ld. NCLT though such orders had nothing to do with issues involved in the present IAs filed by the appellant. The issue in those applications was to consider the belated claims or to hand over the possession of the flats to bona fide allottees (including RERA decree holders) irrespective of whether they (RERA decree holders) have filed their claims or not or filed their claims aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
