2025 (5) TMI 800 - AT - IBC

Bank's housing loan refund clause creates direct financial debt relationship with builder under Section 5(8) IBC

Canara Bank Versus Sh. Vivek Kumar Resolution Professional M/s AVJ Developers (India) Private Limited

NCLAT set aside the dismissal of bank's application seeking admission of claims as financial creditor. Bank advanced housing loans to homebuyers for ... Dismissal of application seeking appropriation directions against the Respondent to admit the claim of the Appellant - financial creditors or not - appellant bank advanced housing loans to individual homebuyers for purchasing residential units in the corporate debtor's project - claims filed by the bank on behalf of homebuyers, without explicit authorization - legal effect of the tripartite agreement among the bank, homebuyers, and corporate debtor - HELD THAT:- The clause of tripartite agreement in the present appeal is very categorical that in case of default of payment of loan or borrower committing any default or any event of failure of builder or in event where the title of dwelling unit is not passed on to the borrower/ homebuyers or due to breach of any terms and conditions contained in the tripartite agreement “the entire advance by the bank on account of borrower shall be refunded by the builder to the bank”. The clause 16 also provide that in case the builder fails to pay the amount as stated in this clause, the borrower shall pay the entire loan amount with interest, including panel interest etc., in terms of loan agreement. The distinguishable aspect of the tripartite agreement of the present appeal vis-à-vis the tripartite agreement of Value Infracon India Private Limited [2021 (12) TMI 908 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI] relied heavily by the Respondent (Resolution Professional) (as well as the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order in rejecting of claims of the Appellant) is that in case of tripartite agreement of Value Infracon India Private Limited there is no responsibility of the Corporate Debtor/ builder/ developer, whatsoever to repay any money of the bankers and the entire responsibility was of the homebuyers, where in in terms of clause 16 of the tripartite agreement of the present appeal, the primary responsibility of repayment of loan in case of any of the eventuality laid down in tripartite agreement falls on the builder/ Corporate Debtor. This indicate relationship of the Appellant Bank and the Corporate Debtor to meet the stipulation of Section 5(8) of the Code regarding the financial debt. This aspect was not available in the case of Value Infracon India Private Limited. The main requirement of definition of financial debt is that there must be debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against time value and money and there should be disbursement of money from creditors to debtors in terms of Section 5(8) of the Code. In context of Section 5(8) of the Code, promise by the debtor to pay money to the creditor may also tantamount to transaction as defined under Section 3(33) of the Code and same may attract the provisions of the Section 5(8) of the Code. It is already noted that the clause 16 of the tripartite agreement in the present appeal amongst the parties indicates that the entire amount advanced by the bank on account of the borrower shall be refunded by the Corporate Debtor/ Builder to the Appellant/ bank thus in terms of Section 5(8) r/w Section 3(33) of the Code, the same may become a financial debt advanced by the Appellant bank to the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant Bank has directly disbursed the amount to the Corporate Debtor/ Builder, albeit, on behalf of the Borrowers/ Homebuyers and in terms of the Tripartite Agreements amongst the Allottees, Builder and the Bank, the Corporate Debtor/ Builder has undertaken to refund the entire amount advanced by the bank in case of event of default of repayment of loan - Clause 9.5(v) of the Resolution Plan provides for submission of claims by allottee/ unit holder/ flat/ shop owner who had failed to file the same with the Respondent or who had filed it but the same was under verification, within 45 days of the approval of the Resolution Plan. Thus, even the plan is approved by CoC, the home-buyers/ Financial Creditor are entitled to file their claims and there is no extinguishment of the claims during such protected period. Conclusion - i) Non-registration of the Mortgage as per Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not a sufficient ground to conclude that the claimant is not a secured creditor. ii) The rejection of the claim by the Resolution Professional and subsequent dismissal by the Adjudicating Authority was based on an erroneous application of the law as it failed to consider the contractual obligations of the Corporate Debtor to the Bank under the tripartite agreement. The Impugned Order is set aside and application is is restored to its original number and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for reassessment of the case, in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues Presented and ConsideredThe core legal questions considered in this appeal include:1. Whether the appellant bank, which advanced housing loans to individual homebuyers for purchasing residential units in the corporate debtor's project, qualifies as a financial creditor under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code').2. Whether the claims filed by the bank on behalf of homebuyers, without explicit authorization from them, have locus standi and can be admitted by the Resolution Professional.3. The legal effect of the tripartite agreement among the bank, homebuyers, and corporate debtor, specifically whether the corporate debtor's obligation to refund the bank in case of default establishes the bank's status as a financial creditor.4. The validity and enforceability of the bank's claimed security interest or lien over the residential units, including the implications of non-registration under Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013.5. The relevance and applicability of prior judicial precedents, especially the judgments in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and Axis Bank Limited vs. Value Infracon India Private Limited, in determining the status of the bank as a financial creditor.6. Whether the rejection of the bank's claims by the Resolution Professional and dismissal by the Adjudicating Authority was legally sustainable.7. The effect of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) orders and recovery certificates on the bank's claim and its classification as a financial creditor.8. The impact of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Code on the bank's proceedings before the DRT.9. The implications of the Supreme Court's remand order for fresh consideration of the appeal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Status of the Bank as Financial Creditor under Section 5(8) of the CodeThe legal framework defines a financial creditor as a person to whom a financial debt is owed (Section 5(7)) and financial debt includes money borrowed against interest and other specified liabilities (Section 5(8)). Importantly, an explanation under Section 5(8)(f) includes amounts raised from allottees under a real estate project as financial debt.The appellant bank contended that pursuant to the tripartite agreement, it lent money directly to the corporate debtor on behalf of homebuyers, with a clear contractual obligation on the corporate debtor to refund the bank in case of default by homebuyers or builder's failure to deliver flats. This, the bank argued, establishes a direct financial debt owed by the corporate debtor to the bank, qualifying it as a financial creditor.The Respondent and Adjudicating Authority, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Pioneer Urban Land and the Tribunal's judgment in Value Infracon India, held that the bank does not qualify as a financial creditor because the loan was disbursed to homebuyers, who bear the repayment liability, and not to the corporate debtor. The tripartite agreement was seen as insufficient to alter this relationship.The Tribunal noted that the tripartite agreement in the present case differs from that in Value Infracon. Clause 16 of the agreement imposes a primary obligation on the corporate debtor to refund the bank upon default or failure of the builder, with the borrower's liability being secondary. This creates a direct financial debt relationship between the corporate debtor and the bank, satisfying Section 5(8) requirements.The Tribunal emphasized that the presence of a contractual obligation by the corporate debtor to repay the bank distinguishes this case from prior precedents and supports the bank's claim as a financial creditor.2. Locus Standi and Authorization to File Claims on Behalf of HomebuyersThe Resolution Professional rejected the bank's claims on the ground that only individual homebuyers are entitled to file claims directly and that the bank lacked formal authorization to represent them. The bank argued that authorization was implied through prior communications and that it acted in good faith to represent collective interests.The Tribunal observed that while homebuyers are recognized as financial creditors, the bank's claim arises from a direct contractual relationship with the corporate debtor under the tripartite agreement. Therefore, the bank's locus to file claims is independent of homebuyers' authorization. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration of this aspect.3. Validity and Enforceability of Security InterestThe bank claimed a prior charge/lien on the residential units, registered under SARFAESI and CERSAI, as security for the loans. The Respondent challenged this, citing the absence of registration under Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the requirement of permission from the land-owning authority (GNIDA) under the lease deed for creating any charge.The Tribunal referred to its earlier judgment holding that non-registration under Section 77 does not invalidate a security interest or the status of a secured creditor. The Tribunal also noted that the bank had consent from the corporate debtor and that the charge was registered under SARFAESI and CERSAI, supporting the bank's security claim. The issue of permission from GNIDA was noted but not conclusively decided, leaving it open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh.4. Effect of DRT Orders and Recovery CertificatesThe bank relied on DRT orders directing that the corporate debtor bear primary liability for refund of outstanding dues, and recovery certificates issued jointly against homebuyers and the corporate debtor. The Respondent alleged that the bank concealed the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Code in DRT proceedings, rendering such orders invalid.The Tribunal acknowledged that recovery certificates and DRT orders may fall within the definition of financial debt as per Section 5(8). However, the question of compliance with the moratorium and the validity of such proceedings was left open for the Adjudicating Authority to examine in detail.5. Applicability of Prior Judicial PrecedentsThe Respondent heavily relied on the Value Infracon judgment, which held that banks lending to homebuyers cannot be considered financial creditors of the corporate debtor. The Tribunal distinguished the present case on the basis of the unique clause in the tripartite agreement imposing primary repayment obligation on the corporate debtor.The Supreme Court's remand order emphasized that the earlier NCLAT decision did not consider the merits or the specific contractual clauses imposing liability on the developer. The Tribunal was directed to consider these aspects afresh.6. Rejection of Claims by Resolution Professional and Adjudicating AuthorityThe initial rejection of the bank's claim was based on the absence of direct financing to the corporate debtor and lack of authorization from homebuyers. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority erred in not considering the contractual obligation of the corporate debtor to repay the bank and the implications under Section 5(8) of the Code.The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reassessment, directing the Adjudicating Authority to consider all contentions, including the contractual provisions and security interests, without being influenced by previous observations.7. Impact of Moratorium under Section 14 on DRT ProceedingsThe Respondent contended that the bank's failure to disclose the moratorium in DRT proceedings constituted a violation of Section 14, rendering those proceedings invalid. The Tribunal did not make a conclusive finding but noted that this issue requires detailed examination by the Adjudicating Authority.8. Effect of Supreme Court Remand OrderThe Supreme Court remanded the appeal for fresh consideration, noting that the previous dismissal was cryptic and did not address the merits or the contractual obligations of the developer. The Tribunal accordingly restored the appeal and directed a fresh hearing, keeping all contentions open.Significant Holdings'The distinguishable aspect of the tripartite agreement of the present appeal vis-`a-vis the tripartite agreement of Value Infracon India Private Limited (Supra) is that in the present case, the primary responsibility of repayment of loan in case of any of the eventuality laid down in tripartite agreement falls on the builder/ Corporate Debtor. This indicates a relationship of the Appellant Bank and the Corporate Debtor to meet the stipulation of Section 5(8) of the Code regarding the financial debt.''In terms of Clause 16 of the tripartite agreement, the entire amount advanced by the bank on account of the borrower shall be refunded by the Corporate Debtor/ Builder to the Appellant/ bank. Thus, in terms of Section 5(8) read with Section 3(33) of the Code, the same may become a financial debt advanced by the Appellant bank to the Corporate Debtor.''Non-registration of the Mortgage as per Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not a sufficient ground to conclude that the claimant is not a secured creditor.''The rejection of the claim by the Resolution Professional and subsequent dismissal by the Adjudicating Authority was based on an erroneous application of the law as it failed to consider the contractual obligations of the Corporate Debtor to the Bank under the tripartite agreement.''The claims of the Appellant Bank are to be reconsidered in light of the specific contractual provisions and the legal framework under the Code.''The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration without being influenced by previous observations, with all contentions kept open.'