Tribunal Determines Financial Creditor Status & Admits Insolvency Application

The Tribunal established jurisdiction over the matter, determining the petitioner as a "Financial Creditor" with a "Financial Debt" owed by the Corporate Debtor. Evidence of default was found, leading to the admission of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Mr. Ashok Kumar Juneja was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional, and a moratorium was declared. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with the Code, Rules, and Regulations, directing communication of the order to relevant parties and authorities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
2. Nature of the transaction between the parties.
3. Definition and applicability of "Financial Creditor" and "Financial Debt".
4. Existence of default by the Corporate Debtor.
5. Completeness and admissibility of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal established its jurisdiction over the matter as the registered office of the respondent corporate debtor is in Delhi, making it the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code.

2. Nature of the Transaction Between the Parties:
The petitioner claimed to be a financial creditor who had booked three flats in the respondent's housing project and entered into Buy-Back Agreements cum Guarantee Deeds with the Corporate Debtor. The respondent contended that the transaction was a buyer-seller relationship, not a debtor-creditor relationship. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner had paid significant amounts for the flats and was assured guaranteed returns, which were not honored by the Corporate Debtor.

3. Definition and Applicability of "Financial Creditor" and "Financial Debt":
The Tribunal referred to Sections 5(7) and 5(8) of the Code, defining "Financial Creditor" and "Financial Debt". It emphasized the amendment to Section 5(8) by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, which included amounts raised from an allottee under a real estate project as having the commercial effect of a borrowing. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner, being a home buyer, qualified as a "Financial Creditor" and the amounts paid for the flats constituted "Financial Debt".

4. Existence of Default by the Corporate Debtor:
The petitioner provided evidence of default, including the Buy-Back Agreements, bank statements, receipts, and cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor admitted non-payment of the principal amount but disputed the interest claimed. The Tribunal noted that the post-dated cheques were not encashed due to the Corporate Debtor's requests and false assurances. The Tribunal found sufficient material to conclude that the Corporate Debtor had defaulted in repaying the financial debt.

5. Completeness and Admissibility of the Application under Section 7 of the IBC:
The Tribunal reviewed the application filed under Section 7 of the Code and found it complete in all respects, with no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's observation in "Innoventive Industries Ltd. Vs ICICI Bank and Ors" that once satisfied with the existence of default, the application must be admitted. The Tribunal was satisfied that the default had occurred, the application was complete, and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the proposed IRP.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the application under Section 7 of the Code, appointed Mr. Ashok Kumar Juneja as the Interim Resolution Professional, directed a public announcement, and declared a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code. The Tribunal emphasized the duties and obligations of the IRP and the personnel connected with the Corporate Debtor, ensuring compliance with the Code, Rules, and Regulations. The office was directed to communicate the order to the relevant parties and authorities.

---