Tribunal dismisses appeal, upholds sub-lease deed, imposes penalty for meritless litigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Resolution Professional lacked standing to file the application and failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation. The validity of the sub-lease deed was upheld, and claims by homebuyers lacked sufficient evidence. A penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the Resolution Professional for initiating litigation without merit, with the amount directed to the PM CARES Fund within 15 days.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC.
2. Validity of the sub-lease deed executed by the Corporate Debtor.
3. Locus standi of the Resolution Professional (RP) to file the application.
4. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by the Corporate Debtor.
5. Claims of homebuyers and their rights over the sub-leased plot.
6. Applicability of Section 46 of IBC regarding the look-back period for transactions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC:
The RP argued that the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC to decide issues arising out of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). However, the respondents contended that the relief claimed is beyond the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and should be addressed in a Civil Court. The Tribunal noted that Section 231 of IBC provides that no civil court has jurisdiction over matters empowered to the Adjudicating Authority or the IBBI under IBC, thus supporting the RP's stance on jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the Sub-lease Deed Executed by the Corporate Debtor:
The RP claimed that the sub-lease deed executed on 27.09.2016 was based on fraudulent misrepresentation and should be declared void ab initio. The respondents countered that the sub-lease was a registered instrument executed with the permission of GNIDA and involved payment of lease rent. The Tribunal found no substantial evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the transaction and upheld the validity of the sub-lease deed.

3. Locus Standi of the Resolution Professional (RP) to File the Application:
The Tribunal examined whether the RP had the locus standi to file the application. It was noted that the RP filed the application based on a letter from Arham Escon (R-1) and claims from homebuyers. However, the RP failed to provide a list of allottees or their claim forms, relying solely on the letter from R-1. The Tribunal concluded that the RP did not have the locus standi to file the application as there was no substantial evidence supporting the claims.

4. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation by the Corporate Debtor:
The RP alleged that the Corporate Debtor misrepresented facts to sub-lease the plot and defrauded the allottees of Towers 5, 6, 7, and 7A. The Tribunal found that the RP did not verify the contents of the letter from R-1 or provide evidence of fraud. The association of homebuyers had also settled their claims with the Corporate Debtor without seeking cancellation of the sub-lease deed, weakening the fraud allegations.

5. Claims of Homebuyers and Their Rights Over the Sub-leased Plot:
The RP claimed to have received aggregated claims from 161 homebuyers whose flats were to be constructed on the sub-leased plot. However, the Tribunal noted that the RP did not provide a list of such allottees or their claims. The association of homebuyers had settled their claims with the Corporate Debtor without challenging the sub-lease, indicating that they were not aggrieved by the transaction.

6. Applicability of Section 46 of IBC Regarding the Look-back Period for Transactions:
The respondents argued that Section 46 of IBC, which limits the look-back period to two years, barred the RP from challenging the sub-lease deed executed more than two years before the initiation of CIRP. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the RP had no grounds to doubt the transaction beyond the two-year period, especially without evidence of fraud.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the RP had no locus standi to file the application and failed to provide substantial evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. The sub-lease deed was upheld as valid, and the claims of homebuyers were not supported by adequate documentation. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the RP for unnecessarily dragging the Corporate Debtor into litigation, directing the amount to be deposited in the PM CARES Fund within 15 days.

---