AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. 3. The Respondent company M/s Praveer Constructions Private Limited (CIN U45201DL1999PTC101672) the Corporate Debtor-Respondent was incorporated on 23.09.1999 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Sudhir Khurana is a Director of respondent company. The registered office of the respondent corporate debtor is at 413, 4th Floor Naurang House Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. Since the registered office of the respondent corporate debtor is in Delhi, this Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place is the Adjudicating Authority in relation to the prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of respondent corporate debtor under sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code. 4. The 'Financial Creditor'-Petitioner has proposed the name of Resolution Professional, Shri Alok Kaushik, Flat No. G-105, Sai Baba Apartments, Rohini, Sector-9, Delhi-110085, email id - [email protected]. He has registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00253/2017-18/10767. A written communication dated 07.04.2018 sent by him in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 has also bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the said premises and the monetary outlay involved in the purchase thereof by the Allottee (s)." 8. Subsequently memorandum of settlement/understanding dated 28.03.2012 (Exhibit-6) was executed between the Respondent Company and the Petitioner with respect to return of amount as per settlement as a final settlement of all investments made by the Petitioner in the aforesaid project of the Respondent Company in light of the initial Unit Buyer Agreement and Addendum to Unit Buyer Agreement executed in September, 2006. The modified terms mentioned in the memorandum of settlement/understanding dated 28.03.2012 (Exhibit-6), reads as under:- (i) That, M/s. Praveer Constructions Pvt. Ltd. shall pay Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rs. Sixty Lacs only) to Mrs. Usha Devi & Shri Anar Singh as full and final settlement as per schedule. (ii) That M/s. Praveer Constructions Pvt. Ltd. shall allot & handover Physical Possession at first and second Floor admeasuring area 10,000 sq.ft at sub-judice plot no. C-1, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan when ever the clear title will be handed our to us by Jaipur Development Authority. (iii) That Mrs. Usha Devi & Shri Anar Singh hereby agrees ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to pay an amount of Rs. 1,04,26,000/- (Rupees One Crore Four Lac Twenty Six Thousand) till April 18, 2018 to the petitioner and further interest thereon @ 12% per annum from April 18, 2018 till the date of realization of the amount. 12. The petitioner made various attempts to serve the Respondent firstly by dasti mode and secondly by e-mail address reflected in the master data available at the website of MCA. An affidavit of service to aforesaid effect was also filed by the petitioner which was considered vide order dated 14.06.2018 but inspite of service Respondent have not chosen to appear. Therefore, vide order dated 14.06.2018 we proceeded ex-parte. The aforesaid order is set out below in ex-tenso:- "An affidavit of service filed by the petitioner show that the email has been duly received by the corporate debtor and a copy of the email sent has been placed on record as Annexure-A. The email address is the same which is given in the master data. Despite service no one put in appearance on behalf of the corporate debtor-respondent. Hence, respondents are proceeded ex-parte. List for arguments on 23rd July, 2018." 13. Vide diary No. 6594 dated 12.09.2018 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the son/authorized representative of the petitioner. Further by an e-mail dated 29.12.2017 assurance was given by the Respondent to the Petitioner for resolving the issue amicably within 30 days. It would first be necessary to deal with the issue as to whether the claim of the Petitioner is within the limitation or not. In that regard we may read the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which reads as under:- "Section 18. Effect of acknowledgement in writing.- (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. (2) .......................... Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) an acknowledgement may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for paym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fault along with its dates have been clearly stated in part IV along with all the minute details. There is overwhelming evidence to prove default and name of the resolution professional has also been clearly specified. 17. After hearing learned counsel we may first examine the provisions of Section 7 (2) and Section 7 (5) of IBC which read as under:- "Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor. 7(1)........................... 7 (2) The financial creditor shall make an application under sub-section (1) in such form and manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed. 7(3).......................... 7(4) ......................... 7 (5) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that- (a) a default has occurred and the application under sub-section (2) is complete, and there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order, admit such application; or (b)......................." 18. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provision would show that form and manner of the application has to be the one as prescribed. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), of Section 5 an explanation has been inserted as per which any amount raised from an allottee under a real estate project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial effect of a borrowing. Thereby, after amendment of the Act, the allottees of real estate project have been treated as 'Financial Creditors'." (Emphasis supplied). A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph of the judgment would show that even without any element of assured return an allottee in the real estate project has to be regarded as a 'Financial Creditor'. The petitioner eminently fulfils the aforesaid condition. 21. In the present case Petitioner had booked a unit on payment of Rs. 60,00,000/- to the respondent corporate debtor. The date of disbursement of the said principal amount including the detail of a unit have been furnished in the application. Respective Unit Buyer Agreement, Addendum to Unit Buyer Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding/settlement executed in respect of a unit have been placed on record, which reveals that the principal amount has been paid by the petitioner and has been received by the respondent corporate debtor. 22. Since the amount has been raised from the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not payable in law or in fact. The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rectify the defect within 7 days of receipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority. Under sub-section (7), the adjudicating authority shall then communicate the order passed to the financial creditor and corporate debtor within 7 days of admission or rejection of such application, as the case may be." 25. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion it is seen that the applicant being a home buyer comes within the definition of Financial Creditor. The material placed on record further confirms that applicant financial creditor had disbursed the money to the respondent corporate debtor as consideration for purchase of a unit. Though considerable long period has since lapsed even the principal amount disbursed has not been repaid by the respondent corporate debtor. It is accordingly reiterated that respondent corporate debtor has committed default in repayment of the outstanding financial debt which exceeds the statutory limit of rupees one Lakh. Thus, the ap....