Tribunal initiates CIRP, appoints IRP, declares moratorium. Eligible petitioners within limitation period. Order communicated.

The Tribunal admitted the petition, initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, and declared a moratorium. The IRP was appointed to manage the process, and the petitioners were found eligible and within the limitation period to file the petition. The order was communicated to both parties, and the IRP was directed to proceed with the necessary steps as per the IBC.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Petition
2. Facts of the Case and Evidence of Default
3. Limitation Period
4. Eligibility and Maintainability of the Petition
5. Declaration of Moratorium and Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Petition:
The petition was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The Corporate Debtor, incorporated on 15.03.2012, is a real estate company with its registered address in Chandigarh, thus falling under the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal.

2. Facts of the Case and Evidence of Default:
The petitioners, as financial creditors, had invested in plots and a flat in the Corporate Debtor's real estate project. Petitioner No.1 was allotted two plots for Rs. 67,50,000 and Rs. 62,50,000, respectively, and Petitioner No.2 was allotted a flat for Rs. 52,00,000. Despite agreements dated 17.01.2018 and 10.12.2014, the Corporate Debtor failed to deliver possession by the agreed dates. Various communications requesting possession or refunds were made by the petitioners, which were not honored by the Corporate Debtor. The total amount claimed in default, including interest, was Rs. 3,57,97,229.60 as on 31.01.2021.

3. Limitation Period:
The petition was filed within the limitation period. The Corporate Debtor was supposed to deliver possession of the plots to Petitioner No.1 by 16.04.2018 and the flat to Petitioner No.2 by 31.12.2019. The petitioners issued multiple letters requesting possession, and assurances were given by the Corporate Debtor, but the commitments were not fulfilled. Therefore, the petition was deemed timely.

4. Eligibility and Maintainability of the Petition:
The petitioners complied with the eligibility criteria under Section 7 of the IBC. They represented more than 10% of the homebuyers in the project, as required by the Supreme Court's judgment in Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India. The petitioners' compliance affidavit confirmed that they held a significant portion of the allotments, satisfying the threshold requirement. The application was found to be complete in the prescribed Form No.1.

5. Declaration of Moratorium and Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):
The Tribunal admitted the petition under Section 7(5) of the IBC, declaring a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code. The moratorium imposed prohibitions on suits, asset transfers, enforcement actions, and property recovery against the Corporate Debtor. Mr. Navneet Kakkar was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), tasked with taking steps as mandated under the IBC, including the constitution of a Committee of Creditors and filing regular progress reports. The Financial Creditor was directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 with the IRP for immediate CIRP expenses.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the petition, initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, and declared a moratorium. The IRP was appointed to manage the process, and the petitioners were found eligible and within the limitation period to file the petition. The order was communicated to both parties, and the IRP was directed to proceed with the necessary steps as per the IBC.

---