2021 (9) TMI 931 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appeal Dismissed: Appellant Denied Relief, Allowed to Contest Eviction. No Preferential Treatment.

Ms. Indrani Brahmachari Versus Mr. Chandra Prakash, Ms. Arti Saraf, Mr. Vidur Bharadwaj

Ms. Indrani Brahmachari Versus Mr. Chandra Prakash, Ms. Arti Saraf, Mr. Vidur Bharadwaj - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Rent Agreement.2. Liability of the Corporate Debtor concerning the Rent Agreement.3. Preferential treatment to the Appellant during CIRP.4. Respondent No. 3's involvement and obligations.5. Relief sought by the Appellant against eviction.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Rent Agreement:The dispute centers around a Rent Agreement dated 27th November 2018 between Respondent No. 2 (Ms. Aarti Saraf) and the Appellant. The agreement stated that the monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 28,000, and an advance rent of Rs. 112,000 was paid by Mr. Vidur Bhardwaj, as evidenced by a cheque. The Tribunal noted that although Mr. Vidur Bhardwaj's name and cheque were mentioned, he was not a signatory to the document. Respondent No. 3 denied any knowledge or involvement in the agreement, claiming it was a private dispute between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2.2. Liability of the Corporate Debtor concerning the Rent Agreement:The Appellant argued that the Corporate Debtor should be liable for the rent payments as Mr. Vidur Bhardwaj, a director of the holding company of the Corporate Debtor, had arranged the accommodation. However, the Tribunal found no contractual obligation binding the Corporate Debtor to the Rent Agreement. The arrangement of accommodating the Appellant in alternate premises was not part of the Builder-Buyer Agreement or any subsequent agreement making the Corporate Debtor liable.3. Preferential treatment to the Appellant during CIRP:The Tribunal emphasized that directing the Resolution Professional to continue paying the rent would result in preferential treatment to one allottee over others. Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), all allottees must be treated equally, and any preferential treatment would not align with the scheme of IBC. The Tribunal noted that such preferential benefits were not extended to all allottees of the Corporate Debtor.4. Respondent No. 3's involvement and obligations:Respondent No. 3 initially denied knowledge of the Rent Agreement and the issuance of the cheque. However, the Appellant provided evidence of the cheque signed by Respondent No. 3. Faced with this evidence, Respondent No. 3 claimed the payment was a loan to the Appellant. The Tribunal found this explanation unconvincing and suggested that Respondent No. 3 was suppressing facts. Nevertheless, the Tribunal concluded that any arrangement made by Respondent No. 3 did not bind the Corporate Debtor.5. Relief sought by the Appellant against eviction:The Appellant sought protection against eviction from the alternate premises. The Tribunal concluded that granting such relief would not be consistent with the IBC's scheme, which requires equal treatment of all allottees. The Tribunal allowed the Appellant to contest the eviction proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 in the appropriate forum but denied the specific relief sought in this Appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, stating that although it differed from the observations of the Adjudicating Authority, the relief sought by the Appellant could not be granted. The Appellant was allowed to contest the eviction proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 but could not claim preferential treatment during the CIRP. The Appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.