Debt Default Dispute: Petition Dismissed as Premature.

The Tribunal dismissed the Financial Creditor's application under section 7 of IBC, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on a debt, citing the pre-mature nature of the petition. The dispute arose from non-delivery of a commercial property and subsequent termination of the Purchase Agreement. The Tribunal determined that the debt was not yet due and payable based on the Agreement provisions, specifically the construction timeline, making the petition premature and not maintainable. The Tribunal refrained from addressing other contentions and directed the Registry to communicate the order to the parties.

---

---

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.

---