TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts : Mr. V. Prakash, Senior Advocate For Ms. K. Jayasudha, Advocate For Appellant in CA (AT) (CH) (Ins.) Nos. 375 & 376/2023 & Applicant in IA No. 1371 and 1341/2023 For the Respondents : Mr. E. Om Prakash, Senior Advocate For Mr. Srinivasan, Advocate For R1 in CA (AT) (CH) (Ins.) Nos. 375 & 376/2023 Respondent No.1 in IA No. 1371/2023 Respondent No. 3 in IA No. 1341/2023 Ms. Elamathi, Advocate, For Liquidator/ R2 in CA (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 375/2023 and for Liquidator/R4 in CA (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 376/2023 Respondent No. 2 in IA No. 1371/2023 Respondent No. 4 in IA No. 1341/2023 ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) [ Per : Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)] 1. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order in IA/IBC/919(CHE)/2022 in IBA/812/2020 dated 12.09.2023 and in IA/IBC/1779/CHE/2023 in IA/IBC/669/CHE/2022 in IBA/812/2020 dated 11.10.2023, respectively passed by the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal, NCLT, Bench - II, Chennai, Reliance Commercial Finance Limited, preferred these Appeals. Since both these Appeals refer to common facts and issues, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. IA(IBC)/919/CHE/2022 in IBA/812/2020 & IA(IBC)/972/CHE/2022 in IBA/826/2020, were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in registering the flat; and if yes, they pay 95% of the sale consideration on registration. The balance 5% can be paid at the time of handing over of the respective units. If the customers are not interested in registering the flat and would like to cancel the sale, the same can be cancelled and the flat should be allowed to be resold and the proceeds from the re-sale should be utilized for completion of the pending work. Refund for such uninterested homebuyers shall be made from the proceeds available in the 'GRT Grand' account, only after completion of the entire project and obtaining a completion certificate and not before. d. If no intimation is received from the unregistered homebuyers, within a period of 14 days, the allotment should be treated as cancelled and the flat should be allowed to be resold and the proceeds from the re-sale should be utilized for completion of the pending work. Refund for such uninterested homebuyers shall be made from the proceeds available in the 'GRT Grand' account, only after completion of the entire project and obtaining a completion certificate and not before. vi. The entire proceeds/receivables collected in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from enforcing the mortgage, hypothecation or any security interest on the Secured Asset as more fully described in schedule herein, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or under other applicable laws, pending disposal of IA/IBC/669/CHE/2022 before this Hon'ble Tribunal. b. Pass an interim injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from transferring or assigning its entitlement and interest in recovering the Second Loan of Rs.7,96,81,736/- and rights under the memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 30.06.2017 registered as document no.6543 of 2017 and deed of hypothecation dated 28.04.2015, pending disposal of IA/IBC/669/CHE/2022 before this Hon'ble Tribunal. c. Pass an order directing the 2nd Respondent to deposit all title deeds and other documents relating to the Secured Asset as more fully described in the memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 30.06.2017 registered as document no.6543 of 2017, with the Liquidator Mr. Venkataraman Subramanian pending disposal of IA/IBC/669/CHE/2022 before this Hon'ble Tribunal. d. Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s created by the Corporate Debtor Company with express consent of M/s. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited in its capacity as the Trustee of LICHFL Trustee Company Private Limited. It is submitted that the Appellant was given the 1st Charge of the Project land through the Tripartite Agreement and LICHFL also issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for ceding of the 1st Charge, in favour of the Appellant by Letter dated 14.06.2017 for the purpose of effecting the mortgage. 7. It is further submitted that as the Corporate Debtor could not discharge the 1st Loan, had sought for restructuring of the said `Project Loan', the Appellant, on the request of the Corporate Debtor has sanctioned a `Construction Loan' of Rs.7,96,81,736/- in lieu of the Outstanding Loan Amount due. It is submitted that the Appellant through its Letter dated 12.03.2019 had conveyed the restructuring of the loan facilities to the LICHFL and the Corporate Debtor vide Letter dated 20.03.2019 also sought for an NOC with respect to the said restructuring. The Loan Account of the Corporate Debtor had become an NPA on 23.03.2021 and due to the Default in Repayment of the Loan Dues, the Appellant on 18.06.2021, had issued a N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellants were directed to be sold by the Liquidator and the proceeds were to be disbursed to the Financial Creditors as per the Waterfall Mechanism, under Section 53 of the `Code'. 10. It is vehemently contended by the Learned Senior Counsel that the Declaratory Reliefs sought for by the First Respondent are `Inter se' disputes, between the Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority does not have Jurisdiction to entertain these disputes and the subject Reliefs can be granted only by Civil Courts. It is the further case of the Appellants that the 2nd Loan is not a fresh Loan and it was given in lieu of the default committed by the Corporate Debtor in servicing the 1st Loan and therefore, it was to be construed as a restructuring of the 1st Loan as evinced in the Letters dated 12.03.2019 & 20.03.2019. It is also the case of the Appellants that in terms of the Tripartite Agreement dated 14.06.2017, the Appellant is entitled to retain the Security Interest over the Secured Assets for the 2nd Loan. It was argued by the Learned Senior Counsel that the First Respondent had remained silent from 12.03.2019 to 11.08.2021 and therefore, it has to be construed that the First Respondent h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as a Secured Creditor. Pending consideration of the said Application, the Corporate Debtor was ordered to be liquidated vide Order dated 12.09.2023 in IA (IBC)/919/CHE/2022. 13. It is further submitted that to protect the `Home Buyers' interest and for completion of the Project, a direction was issued to restrain the Appellant from enforcing the Security Interest and to handover the Title Deeds to the Liquidator. 14. It is argued by the Learned Senior Counsel of the First Respondent that the Sanction Letter dated 31.01.2019 clearly states that the 2nd Loan is a new Construction Finance Loan and there is no reference to the restructuring of the 1st Loan in the Sanction Letter and that this Sanction Letter required a Fresh NOC which was never given and therefore, both the Loans are distinct and different. In fact, in the email dated 13.03.2019, the Appellant admitted that it did not have the 1st Charge over the Project and requested the First Respondent to issue a Fresh NOC ceding the Charge. It is contended that the Tripartite Agreement was in relation to the 1st Loan only and that the Adjudicating Authority has the Jurisdiction to decide the `Inter se' disputes, between the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OC for ceding of the 1st Charge in favour of the Appellants was still pending and a request was being made for its issuance. 20. A perusal of the `Charges Registered', under the MCA Website also establishes that no Charge was created or registered in relation to the 2nd Loan. 21. The Tripartite Agreement relied upon by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants is with respect to an amount of Rs.11 Crores sanctioned for the purpose of Construction Finance, against which, an NOC was also issued on 14.06.2017. It is clearly recorded that upon payment of the 1st Loan, the First Respondent would become the 1st Charge Holder and the Appellant is required to handover the Title documents. The record establishes that the 1st Loan was `closed' and the amount paid. This is further substantiated by the fact that the Mortgage Deed is confined only to the 1st Loan and the fact that specific requests were made for Issuance of Fresh NOC from the First Respondent and a Fresh Mortgage and ROC Charge Registration. 22. Subsequently, after the matters were heard at length and the Appeals were Reserved for Orders on 01.12.2023 and the Parties were requested to file their short Written Submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Re-hear the matter. Hence, we are of the view that the IA No. 1371/2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 375 / 2023 and IA No. 1341 / 2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 376 / 2023 are misconceived and dismissed accordingly. All connected pending Interlocutory Applications in the main Company Appeals (Insolvency) are closed. No order as to costs. ============= Document 1Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\inetpub\vhosts\taxmanagementindia.com\httpdocs\python_image_text_project\google\direct_extract_text.py", line 19, in from google_doc_api import process_single_document File "C:\inetpub\vhosts\taxmanagementindia.com\httpdocs\python_image_text_project\google\google_doc_api.py", line 345 elif mime_type in ["image/gif"]: IndentationError: expected an indented block after 'if' statement on line 341 Document 2Srinivasan M.D From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: ANNEXURE-L Laxmi Narayan/RHF/CR-Mort-CF 02 April 2019 16:39 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Am....