9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma. Mr. Bhaskar Tripathi, Mr. Venamra Mahaseth, Advocates for Applicant Homebuyers in IA No.5972 of 2024. JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. This Appeal by Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor- M/s. Supertech Township Projects Limited has been filed challenging the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, Court-IV admitting Section 7 application filed by Punjab & Sind Bank. The Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 15.06.2010 to develop a residential complex named- Golf Country at Plot No. TS-05, Sector-22-D, Yamuna Expressway, Greater Noida. On request of the Corporate Debtor, Punjab & Sind Bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.140 Crore in the year 2012-2013. Corporate Debtor executed revival letters in favour of the financial creditor acknowledging and confirming their liability on 31.03.2016/ 26.07.2016. On 30.06.2018, the account of the corporate debtor was classified as NPA. Financial facilities were also extended to the corporate debtor by two other consortium banks namely- Bank of Maharashtra and Oriental Bank of Commerce (now Punjab National Bank). PNB has disbursed the amount of Rs.100 Crores and Bank of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Appellant in this Tribunal on 23.07.2024. Appeal was heard on 29.07.2024. Appellant submitted before this Tribunal that Appellant is taking steps to settle the entire dispute with the financial creditor and within 7 days' appropriate proposal be submitted to Punjab & Sind Bank. On 29.07.2024, following order was passed by this Tribunal:- "29.07.2024: Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is taking steps to settle the entire dispute with the Financial Creditor and within 7 days from today an appropriate proposal shall be submitted to the Punjab and Sind Bank, the Financial Creditor herein. It is further submitted that 75% of development has already taken place and State of Uttar Pradesh has introduced Zero Policy Scheme and the Corporate Debtor also intend to take benefit of the said scheme. Shri Nayyar has appeared for a Group of Homebuyers, he submits that the Homebuyers also support the proposal of the Appellant. List this Appeal on 21.08.2024. In the meantime, in pursuance of the impugned order no further steps shall be taken except collation of claims which have already been invited." 4. By interim order passed on 29.07.2024, this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Another IA No.7378 of 2024 has been filed by MD Tofik Solanki & Ors. claiming to be authorised representative of 168 homebuyers who by the application contends that the homebuyers prayed that construction of project may be directed to recommence under the supervision of Respondent No.3- IRP. It is pleaded that 70-80% work is completed and unless the construction of project is not commenced, the homebuyers shall suffer irreparable loss. 8. Punjab & Sind Bank has also filed an affidavit on 06.01.2025 pleading that settlement proposal submitted by the Appellant on 06.08.2024 by M/s. Nisus Finance Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. was considered by Joint Lenders' Meeting on 14.08.2024 and was not agreed, on 2nd proposal which has been submitted along with the investor- HRDI Group Private Limited has also been considered and in the Joint Lenders' Meeting held on 04.01.2025, proposal was unanimously rejected by all the lenders. It is submitted that the amount of Punjab & Sind Bank in the application was Rs.216,92,87,046/- on 30.06.2023 and in the proposals which are submitted by the appellant, the bank is proposed to be paid only an amount of Rs.91.03 Crore in three years. In the Affidavit, Punj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Amitabh Kant Committee Report, only Rs.387.34 Crores is payable which shall be paid in three years. The fact that some homebuyers' groups are objecting the proposal is not determinative. There are other homebuyers i.e. 168 in numbers who are supporting proposal of the promoters. Appellant has given feasible and viable plan to revive the distress position. 12. Counsel appearing for Punjab & Sind Bank submitted that debt and default being due against the Appellant, Adjudicating Authority has rightly commenced Section 7 proceedings against the Appellant. Appellant has submitted three proposals from time to time. 1st and 2nd proposals were considered by all the lenders and have been rejected. It is submitted that against the huge dues of the Punjab & Sind Bank alone of more than Rs.216 Crores as on 30.09.2023. The Appellant is proposing to pay entire Rs.90 Crores which is not acceptable to the bank. All lenders unanimously in the JLM meeting held on 05.01.2025 has rejected the proposals submitted by the Appellant. 13. Counsel appearing for YEIDA submits that YEIDA has already filed its claim in Form C before the IRP for an amount of Rs.741 Crores. In the objection and applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditor- Punjab & Sind Bank and has getting interim order extended and CoC could not be constituted. Homebuyers are facing considerable difficulties with the banks' dues on the default committed by the corporate debtor. Homebuyers have already suffered grave prejudice and injustice. 16. Shri Arvind Nayyar, Learned Senior Counsel appearing in IA No.7378 of 2024 on behalf of MD Tofik Solanki & Ors. submits that the applicants who represent 168 homebuyers seeks direction to IRP to recommence and complete the construction of the project namely- Golf Country. The project has been completely stopped and stalled. In event, the work is continued, the allottees- homebuyers will get the possession which they are waiting for the last several years. About 70-80% of the work is complete. Object of the applicants for filing the application is to look into the interest of the homebuyers who have spent their hand earned money and desperately waiting for their units. Applicants have also referred to the report submitted by Amitabh Kant Committee in July 2023 which contains a proposal for State Government's Rehabilitation Package. It is further submitted that this Tribunal in several orders have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th postal receipts are filed herewith as Annexure A-8. 18. Reply was filed by the corporate debtor opposing Section 7 application raising various objections to the application. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has considered objections and has held that the application filed by the Punjab & Sind Bank was filed by person authorised and further application is not barred by time. Adjudicating Authority also returned a finding that there exists debt and default. Finding returned in paragraph 29 of the impugned order is as follows:- "29. With regard to the existence of debt and default, on a perusal of Form - I and the documents annexed with the application, we are satisfied that the applicant clearly comes within the definition of Financial Creditor and the loan was disbursed to Corporate Debtor and there exists a debt and its default." 19. The present is a case where debt and default is not even contested. As noted above, when the appeal was heard on 29.07.2024, Appellant contended that it is taking steps to settle entire dispute and appropriate proposal be given within 7 days. Interim order was passed on 29.07.2024 which was extended from time to time. 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bilitation Package a. The Committee recommends that State Governments may announce a rehabilitation package aimed at bolstering financially distressed, incomplete projects. The package should be designed to make the projects financially viable. Developers adopting this package would have to commit to a three-year completion timeline. The State RERA will set quarterly project targets and oversee progress as per the RERA Act. A model package suitable for Noida/Greater Noida is given below. Other State Governments are also encouraged to devise similar packages : i. Introduction of a "Zero Period": To alleviate financial stress caused by extraordinary circumstances, the Committee suggest suspending interest and penalties due to events like the Covid-19 pandemic (01.04.2020 to 31.03.2022), and court orders suspending projects within a 10 km radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary (14.08.2013 to 19.08.2015). The State Governments could examine and provide further zero periods based on the local conditions/circumstances. ii. Interest Application: The Committee advises applying interest based on the 3Y Marginal Cost of funds-based Lending Rate (MCLR) SBI of 1ª June 2020 for fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as excess land, it can provide immediate resources for construction. This land could be used for shopping centres and other such uses. Land Authorities should permit this on payment basis. This optimization can provide financial relief and expedite project completion. xi. Permission to mortgage should be given by land authorities without insisting upon 100% clearance of dues so that builders can mobilize resources for completion of projects and payment of dues. b. The Committee recommends that developers pay 25% of the balance due to the Authority after the above concessions within sixty (60) days as a measure of commitment. The balance 75% would be paid over a three-year period with simple interest specified in para a(ii) above. If a developer fails to complete the project within the stipulated time frame or progress is found unsatisfactory by RERA, 20% penalty will be imposed, and the project will come under the direct management of State RERA as detailed in Part (V) below. c. The Committee believes that this model package can be particularly beneficial for regions like Noida/Greater Noida and we encourage all other State Governments to consider similar adaptations. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Aggrieved by the order, appeal was filed where appellant pleaded that it is ready and willing to settle the matter with the homebuyers. During pendency of the Appeal, Appellant settled the matter with Respondent No.2 i.e. homebuyers. Despite the said settlement, NCLAT passed an order modifying the interim order and directed the IRP to go ahead with the constitution of CoC and carry forward. Appellant thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.1928 of 2020 which was disposed of permitting the Appellant to approach the NCLT for modification of its order. Appellant filed modification application in the NCLT which was rejected against which the appeal was filed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above context has made following observations in paragraphs 22 and 23:- "22. Taking into consideration the salient features of the undertaking given on affidavit by the Promoter, Shri Kashi Nath Shukla and the fact that there are only seven out of the 452 homebuyers, who opposed the Settlement Plan, we find that it will rather be in the interest of the homebuyers that the appellant/promoter is permitted to complete the project as undertaken by him. It is pertinent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings against the corporate debtor in the year 2020 are opposed to any settlement plan. The mere fact that one application which was filed being IA No.7378 of 2024 by MD Tofik Solanki & Ors. claiming to be authorised representative of 168 members who support the appellant cannot be a reason to accept the settlement plan submitted by the appellant and direct the IRP to carry out the construction. Looking to the huge liabilities against the corporate debtor, we are satisfied that present is not a case where this Tribunal may interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 application. Present is a case where resolution of the corporate debtor is required to be found in accordance with statutory scheme under the IBC and the CIRP Regulations. In view of the interim order dated 29.07.2024, no further steps could be taken by the IRP except collation of the claims. We are of the view that period from 29.07.2024 till today need to be excluded in the CIRP period.
28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. CIRP process against the corporate debtor may proceed in accordance with law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
