TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Debt Default Dispute: Petition Dismissed as Premature.</h1> <h3>Anumati Consultancy & Services Private Limited Versus Wellside Global Private Limited</h3> Anumati Consultancy & Services Private Limited Versus Wellside Global Private Limited - TMI Issues:1. Application under section 7 of IBC, 2016 filed by Financial Creditor against Corporate Debtor for default in payment.2. Dispute over non-delivery of commercial property, subsequent agreement for residential units, and termination of Purchase Agreement.3. Arguments on debt due and payable, default occurrence, and contractual obligations.4. Legal contentions regarding termination, repudiation of contract, and applicability of agreement clauses.5. Analysis of Agreement clauses on construction, termination, and consequences.6. Decision on debt due and payable based on Agreement provisions and pre-mature nature of the petition.Analysis:1. The Financial Creditor filed an application under section 7 of IBC, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on a debt of Rs. 66,81,20,672, including principal and interest, due to non-delivery of a commercial property and subsequent termination of the Purchase Agreement.2. The Financial Creditor contended that the debt was due and payable as the Corporate Debtor failed to deliver the property, leading to a default. The Corporate Debtor argued that the debt was not yet due as per the agreement terms, citing a grace period for possession until May 2020.3. Legal arguments focused on the contractual obligations, termination versus repudiation of the contract, and the applicability of agreement clauses determining the forfeiture of amounts in case of termination.4. The Tribunal examined clauses from the Agreement, highlighting the construction and handover timeline, as well as the consequences of termination, emphasizing the specific conditions for forfeiture of amounts in case of termination before fit-out notice issuance.5. Considering the scheme of IBC, 2016 and the Agreement provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the debt was not yet due and payable based on the construction timeline specified in the Agreement, rendering the petition premature and thus not maintainable.6. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, emphasizing the pre-mature nature of the claim and refrained from expressing opinions on other contentions raised by the parties, directing the Registry to communicate the order to the concerned parties and issue certified copies as necessary.
TaxTMI 