9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16/2024 as preferred in IA(IBC)(Plan) No. 8/2024 in CP (IB)No. 296/7/2022. As a consequence of the Impugned Order of 04.10.2024, some of the claims, which were raised by the Appellant in the application being IA (IBC)/625/2024, were rejected and consequent to dismissal of IA(IBC)/625/2024, IA No.16/2024 (Intervention) preferred by him was held as infructuous and was disposed accordingly. 2. The brief facts of the interlocutory applications which were preferred before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, had been that the Appellant "(Manjeera Majestic Commercial Owners Association)", (herein after to be called as the Appellant), being an association of purchasers of unit in Manjeera Majestic Commercial, a building developed by M/s. Manjeera Retail Holding Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor (CD) claims its status to be that of the registered society, which has been said to be registered in accordance to the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable with the Government of Telangana. Consequent to the registration of the Appellant Association, it has been accorded with Registration No. 175/2019, and it is on acquiring that aforesaid legal status, that the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms on grounds that they were never admitted by the Corporate Debtor, and that the act of rejection of its claims by the Resolution Professional is not correct as the Corporate Debtor failed to comply with the obligations which it was to discharge in line with the covenants of the agreements for sale entered into, with each of the buyer members of the Applicant society, and since there was an apparent breach of a contractual obligation referred to, on the basis of the agreement for sale the claims arising thereof should have been admitted. The Appellant contended that they are entitled for certain respective genuine claims, which remained unsatisfied and which should be paid to them by the Corporate Debtor. 5. The Appellant contended, that despite various opportunities, and several reminders given by them to the Corporate Debtor to provide the services to which they were entitled to, the Corporate Debtor did not provide the services and remit the amount due and therefore it had claimed the same by recording them in Form-F along with the proof of claim which was not considered by the Resolution Professional. The claims thus submitted by the Appellant in Form F is extracted hereunder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellants Association as per prevailing laws of execution of deed of conveyance. 7. The copies of such e-mails of the Corporate Debtor, has been filed by the Appellant on record to substantiate the claims raised by it in the IA No. 625/2024, which were not considered for inclusion by the Resolution Professional during the CIRP proceedings and he had submitted before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority that non-consideration of such e-mails, for the purposes of establishment and determination of the liability of the Corporate Debtor to the members of the Appellant's Association, made it necessary to file the application before Ld. Adjudicating Authority. 8. It is seen that the claims raised by the Appellant have their genesis and foundation on the alleged unregistered agreement for sale. It is not in controversy and rather admitted that, the alleged agreement for sale was not a registered document, whereas as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the said agreement which seeks to create rights, in relation to an immovable commercial property, ought to have been registered as per the law of Registration Act, 1908. Now the question that would arise for consideration is, as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art from it, nothing on record has been brought by the appellant to establish that a right was created in favor of the Appellant society by execution of a sale deed for the alleged office space for Appellant society. In fact, the Appellant had attempted to make a plea for the purposes of the remittance of the balance claims, by referring to the unregistered agreement for sale, as though it is a registered document. The agreement for sale, dated 05.08.2010, which is placed on record is not a document which has been registered in the eyes of the law, so as to make it to be read in evidence; for determining of a claim or any right arising from it. The terms of agreement therein reads as under: - "6. The PURCHASER shall also deposit a sum of Rs.50/- per sqf amounting to Rs.1,68,100/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred Only) at the time of taking possession of the SCHEDULE PROPERTY with the DEVELOPER and the same shall form part of Corpus Fund as a deposit of the PURCHASER and the interest accrued on such deposits shall be entitled for the capital expenditure like maintenance of the Building Pipe Lines, External Paintings, Replacement of Motors, Repairs to the Generator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that any document which is mandatorily required to be registered as per law under Section 17 of the Registration Act, has had to be registered and in the absence of its registration, it cannot be received and read in evidence for any transaction affecting such proper property or conferring such rights unless it is registered. Section 49 is extracted hereunder: - "49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.-No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.-A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property." 18. It is not the case of the Appellant in its pleadings or at any stage, that at the behest of the unregistered agreement for sale, any sale deed was ever executed after the exchange of sale consideration, which is a mandatory condition as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, referred to herein above. The transfer in itself is defined under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It would be an exchange of title or a right in favor of the purchaser, upon an exchange of consideration. The term transfer has been defined under Section 5 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882, the same is extracted hereunder: - "5. "Transfer of property" defined.-In the following sections "transfer of property" means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fteen Thousand Four hundred forty-Seven only) towards the reimbursement of the amount incurred by the Appellant for maintenance and management of the basement parking projects and other such claims pertaining to the installations of exhaust pipes and diesel generators and damages for non-providing permanent accommodation, cannot become a valid claim to be raised before the Resolution Professional, under the provisions of I & B Code, 2016, during CIRP proceedings as the very foundation of the claim itself is not based upon a legally sustainable ground. Therefore, the claim thus prayed for, could not have been granted. 22. If the pleadings raised by the Appellant in the Memorandum of Appeal itself are taken into consideration, the fact as reported in the impugned order that, the Appellant, has failed to show that the Corporate Debtor has admitted the claim of the Appellant, is quite justified as a claim under Form-F could only be considered once, it is sustained and substantiated to be due by the documents on record, which was the responsibility casted upon the Appellant to establish the same by filing it before the Resolution Professional/Ld. Adjudicating Authority, as burden to es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim raised, it would not be in controversy, that according to the finding recorded, by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority so far it relates to Claim No. 1, pertaining to the Corpus Fund, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority after considering the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor had recorded a finding that according to the entries made therein, a sum of Rs. 1,16,92,750/- (One Crore Sixteen Lakh Ninety-Two Thousand Seven hundred fifty only) along with interest Rs. 6,38,328/- (Six Lakh Thirty-Eight Thousand Three hundred twenty-Eight only) totaling to Rs. 1,23,31,078/-(One Crore twenty-Three Lakh thirty-One Thousand Seventy-Eight only) was found to be admitted by the Resolution Professional. And for the aforesaid amount under the head of Corporate Fund, even the Appellant, while arguing the instant appeal, does not raise any question, for the claim of Corpus Fund, which was admitted to the extent of Rs. 1,23,31,078/- (One Crore twenty-Three Lakh thirty-One Thousand Seventy-Eight only), hence we are not required to venture into and record any finding on the said claim. 26. As far as the claim of reimbursement of property taxes, which we have already dealt with above, the Ld. Adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to it vide letter dated 13.09.2022 addressed by Telanga Housing Board." 30. The appellant admits in para VII (c) of the said memorandum that out of the total 206 units, the allotment has been made with regard to 199 commercial units, and that the registered sale deed, could not be executed in favor of the members of the Appellant society, owing to a certain dispute, raised by Telangana Housing Board. That being the situation when the sale deed itself has not been executed, when the so-called office premises for which the claims was raised was never allotted, when the Appellant has not been able to prove the handing over of possession of the so-called allotment of the office premises for being utilized for the office of the Society of the Appellant, in the absence of any sale deed having being placed on record without proof of possession, the claim towards the integrated building system was rightly denied because it will not amount to fall to be a "debt due" to be paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant or its members as per the definition of "debt" provided under the I & B Code. 31. Similar would be an answer to the claim raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
