TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2/financial creditor) at paragraph 2 to 5 had observed the following and directed the Registry to club such applications together and place before this Bench for hearing. "2. In view of the above, Amendment in procedure to file application under Section 7 of IBC by Allotee/Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor, the question before this Adjudicating Authority is whether the Application filed by single allotee under section 7 of IBC and pending for consideration of this Adjudicating Authority is to be rejected holding to be not maintainable or allotees in same project who has already filed such applications and pending for consideration are allowed to peruse their application joint? 3. On this aspect, we heard learned counsel for the Applicant/Financial Creditors and learned counsel for the Corporate Debtor. 4. Learned Counsel for the allotees/Financial Creditors brought to our notice of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Monish Kumar Vs Union of India (CP No.26/2020), we have gone through the ruling Hon'ble Supreme Court explained proviso 3 in the following words: "Now, the third proviso, thus, indeed, does not say that as on the date of filing of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of payment of court fees, in the matter which we have detailed in the paragraph just herein before. ii. Secondly, we direct the if applications are moved under section 7 by the petitioners, within a period of two months from today, in compliance with either of the provisos, as the case may be, and the application would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, on the default alleged in the applications, which were already filed, if the petitioner filed applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of time spent before the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating authority shall allow the applications and the period, during which, the earlier applications filed by them, which is the subject matter of the third proviso, was pending before the Adjudicating Authority. iii. We make it clear that the time limit of two months is fixed only for conferring the benefits of exemption from court fees and for condonation of the delay caused by the applications pending before the Adjudicating Authority. In other words, it is always open to the petitioners to file applications, even after the period of two months and seek the benefit of condonation of delay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 7 of the Code are required to file the same jointly by complying with the ingredients mentioned thereto. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 ("Adjudicating Authority Rules") pertains to the filing of applications before the Adjudicating Authority and that an application under Section 7 of the Code is to be filed in Form I and it is relevant to mention that Form I seeks details of each financial creditor who is filing the application. Besides this on behalf of the Appellant the reference is made to Rule 4(4) of the Adjudicating Authority Rules which prescribes that in case an application is being made jointly by the financial creditor, they may nominate one among them to Act on their behalf. Thus the Adjudicating Authority Rules prescribes that with a view to maintain an application, it has to be filed "jointly" and one financial creditor shall act on behalf of other financial creditors. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Vs Union of India (Writ Petition (c) No.26/2020 wherein at paragraph 372 it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....konda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh and accorded approval through Government Orders to it, for the implementation and execution of the township as part of the Integrated Project. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the Respondents and 64 other alleged Allottees had filed the 'Applications' for initiation of CIRP against the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority without presenting correct factual position pertaining to the Project and without appreciating the relevant facts and events beyond the control of the Appellant. 12. It is brought to the Fore that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment)Ordinance 2019 was promulgated by the Government of India on 28.12.2019 to amend the provisions of I&B Code. As a matter of fact, the Ordinance, among other things stated that an application under Section 7 of the Code for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor shall be filed jointly by not less than 100 all such creditors (i.e. Home Buyers). Indeed, the Ordinance among other things mentions that an application under Section 7 of the code for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor shall be filed jointly by n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an application under Section 7 of the I&B Code is to file the said application jointly only after satisfying the requirements contemplated under Section 7 of the Code. 19. In the instant case on hand, para 5 of the impugned order dated 18.06.2021in CP(IB)394/7/HDB/2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad) does not contain any direction being issued to the Respondents and other purported allottees to amend their application as laid down under Section of the code. Without there being a direction issued to the concerned financial creditor/allottees to amend their applications as per Section 7 of the Code, the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority to its Registry as in the impugned order to club such applications together and place before it for hearing cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law especially in the teeth of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Judgement in the case of Manish Kumar Vs Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No.26/2020). 20. Added further, it is to be pointed out that in the present case, Respondent or other alleged Allottees have not filed any application praying for modification of their ....