IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI BENCH, COURT –III
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023
And
IB-72/ND/2022
IN THE MATTER OF IB-72/ND/2022:
Ms. Priti Rawat Pandey & 77 Ors. …. Financial Creditors
Versus
M/s. RUDRA BUILDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
Having Its Registered Office at:
314, F/F, Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II,
East Delhi, Delhi-110091. .... Corporate Debtor
AND IN THE MATTER OF Intervention P.-37/2022:
Rudra Buyers Welfare Association …. Applicant
Versus
Ms. Priti Rawat Pandey & Anr. …. Respondents
AND IN THE MATTER OF IA-5445/2023:
Mr. A. C. Banerjee & 17 Ors. …. Applicants
Versus
M/s. RUDRA BUILDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
.... Respondent
AND IN THE MATTER OF IA-1178/2023:
Ms. Tina Dutt & 4 Ors. …. Applicants
Versus
Ms. Priti Rawat Pandey & Anr. …. Respondents
Order Pronounced On: 15.04.2024
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 1 of 16
CORAM:
SHRI BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
SHRI ATUL CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
APPEARANCES:
For Applicants : Mr. A. Venayagam Balan (AoR) and Mr. Gaurav
Pal, Advs.
For Respondent : Mr. P. Nagesh, Sr. Adv. along with CS Mr. Gaurav
Joshi, Mr. Atul Bhatia, Adv.
For Intervener : Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Adv.
For GNIDA/GNOIDA : Mr. U. N. Singh, Adv.
ORDER
PER: ATUL CHATURVEDI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
1. IB-72/ND/2022
This Application has been filed by Ms. Priti Rawat Pandey & 77 Ors., the
Applicants/Financial Creditors before this Adjudicating Authority under
Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” or “Code”)
r/w Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating
Authority) Rules, 2016, (“Adjudicating Authority Rules”), for initiating the
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), against M/s. Rudra
Buildwell Constructions Private Limited, the Respondent/Corporate
Debtor on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted/failed to
clear the Principal Amount of debt amounting to Rs. 26,48,06,116/- plus
Interest on the Principal amount at the rate of 18% per annum from the
dates of Payments/disbursements made by the Applicants/Financial
Creditors to the Corporate Debtor till the date of final realization.
2. It is contended by the Applicants that the Corporate Debtor through its
Directors, authorised agents, marketing staff and employees, represented
to the Applicants that they are developing a Group Residential Housing
project under the name KBNOWS Apartment. Based on the representation
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 2 of 16
of the Corporate Debtor, the Applicants booked residential Flats for their
personal use to be constructed in project KBNOWS Apartment.
3. The Applicants have paid all the instalments as per Annexure-I payment
plan annexed to the Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA). Till date, all the
Applicants/Financial Creditors No. 1 to 78 have paid a sum of
Rs.26,48,06,116/- i.e. the principal amount to the Corporate Debtor on
various dates.
4. The Applicants have filed the copies of the respective Builder Buyer
Agreements, payment receipts, ledger account, bank statements, loan
statements, etc. and the demand notices issued to the
Respondent/Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that till the end of the year
of 2015, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor had collected 85% to 100% of
the total cost of the flat without completing the project.
5. It is submitted by the Applicants that the Corporate debtor has failed to
complete the Project and also failed to give legal possession with sub-lease
as stipulated by GNOIDA and as per timelines agreed in the BBA within
27 months from the date of Booking or from the date when the sanction
plan is approved by GNOIDA whichever is later. The timeline had expired
between March, 2015 to November, 2017 in respect of the
Applicants/Home Buyers.
6. It is submitted that as per the RERA registration, the project ought to have
been completed and possession ought to have been given to the Applicants
as on 30.06.2018 which also expired. So the default has occurred on the
said date as well.
7. It is submitted that the Flat Buyers Association known as “Rudra
KBNOWS Flat Buyers Association” filed a complaint in the year of 2019
before the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gautam Budh
Nagar bearing a Complaint No. 11201825120 claiming possession of the
flats and penalty on delayed possession. The UP RERA directed the
Respondent/Corporate Debtor to give physical possession of the flats by
September, 2019 upon receiving the occupancy certificate. The UP RERA
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 3 of 16
further directed the Corporate Debtor to pay penalty as per BBA till
30.04.2016 and also directed to pay MCLR + 1% penal interest from
01.05.2016 till the date of receiving occupancy certificate. However, the
Corporate Debtor failed to hand over the possession to the Home Buyers
and therefore, the default occurred from September, 2019.
8. The Corporate Debtor has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations
made by the Applicants and stated that a Flat Buyer Association with the
name and style "Rudra KBNOWS Flat Buyers Association" ("Flat Buyer
Association") was formed in the year 2017 wherein 78 homebuyers who
are Applicants before this Adjudicating Authority in the present
application were members. The said Flat Buyers Association had filed a
complaint against the Corporate debtor before the U.P. RERA at Gautam
Budh Nagar, Bench III. The complaint filed at the instance of the Flat
Buyers Association culminated into passing of a decree at the hands of
UPRERA Authority vide order dated 13th August 2019 in the favour of Flat
Buyer Association.
9. However, the Respondent/Corporate Debtor has not specifically denied
the case of the Applicants/Financial Creditors that the Corporate Debtor
has failed to deliver the possession of the flats within the prescribed time
limit. The objections which have been taken by the Respondent-Corporate
Debtor in its reply are three fold:
A. That in view of the decree obtained from the UP RERA by the Home
Buyers, the present application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 is not
maintainable.
B. The allottees have failed to take possession of the flats despite being
intimated that the fats are ready for possession and the Home Buyers
can enter into the agreement to sub-lease after clearance of the
outstanding dues.
C. No purpose would be served by initiating the CIRP against the completed
project.
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 4 of 16
10. The Applicants have filed a detailed rejoinder to the reply submitted by the
Respondents herein.
11. We have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for
the parties and perused the records.
12. Before proceeding to analyze the case on merits, it is pertinent to note
certain development which have taken place during the course of the
hearing of present case which are stated as under:
a. The Corporate Debtor had filed IA-4626/2020 under Section 60(5) of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the
Applicants/Financial Creditors alleging that the Applicants have filed
the present application under Section 7 of the Code, 2016 with ulterior
motives and for purposes other than resolution of the Insolvency of the
Corporate Debtor. During the course of the arguments, it was
submitted by the Ld. counsel appearing for the Applicants therein
(Corporate Debtor) that an independent Court Commissioner be
appointed for physical inspection of the projects (KBKNOWS) and be
directed to submit a report regarding the status of the completion of
construction of the projects and respective flats of the Home Buyers.
b. Accordingly vide order dated 03.01.2023, this Adjudicating Authority
appointed Ms. Deepika Bhugra Prasad having Registration No.
IBBI/IPA- 003/IP-N00110/2017-2018/11186 as the Court
Commissioner and directed to file a report on the following aspects:
i. “Status of construction of the flats with the status of electricity
connection, lifts, fire safety measures, water connection and STP
with relevant certificates from the Authorities concerned.
ii. Number of flats already taken possession by the Home buyers.
iii. Provision of adequate lighting service roads and other amenities
at the project site.”
c. Pursuant to the said order the Court Commissioner submitted an
Inspection report dated 24.02.2023 vide IA-1742-2023 on 13.03.2023
and all the parties were given opportunities to file objections. The
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 5 of 16
recommendations of the Court Commissioner which are relevant for
the purpose of this adjudication of this case are reproduced below:
“I. Status of Construction of Flats:
Conclusion: In view of the aforementioned facts and inspection, as
on the date of the respective inspection, construction of flats
pertaining to the respective Financial Creditors before this Hon’ble
Tribunal in category A is complete and in respect of category B and
C, the same are in the process of being completed, subject to
observations pointed out hereinabove.
II. Status of electricity connection, lifts, fire safety measures,
water connection and STP with relevant certificates from the
Authorities concerned:
Conclusion: In view of the above-mentioned, it is concluded that the
Corporate Debtor has procured an electricity connection for
construction and the same is currently being provided to the allottees
currently residing at the project.
Conclusion: In view of the above-mentioned, it is concluded that as
on the date of the present Report, the requisite licenses for the
respective elevators are in the process of being obtained/ renewed.
Conclusion: In view of the above-mentioned, it is concluded that the
requisite NOC for Fire Safety is duly in place.
Conclusion: In view of the above-mentioned, it is concluded that the
Corporate Debtor has procured provisioning for water and
sanitation.
Conclusion: In view of the above-mentioned, it is concluded that the
Corporate Debtor has duly commissioned a Sewage Treatment Plant
at the site.
Conclusion: In the absence of any specific objection being raised by
AAI, it is presumed that the NOC remains valid.
Conclusion: In view of environmental clearance certificate produced
before us and no objection having been raised by the concerned
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 6 of 16
authority, it is presumed that the Corporate Debtor has obtained
environmental compliance.
Conclusion: In view of the above-mentioned, it is concluded that the
Corporate Debtor has received permission to get Occupancy
Certificate for 14.46% issued by GNIDA as on date. The validity of
an agreement to sub-lease, as recommended by the Corporate
Debtor needs further clarifications.
Conclusion: In view of the above-mentioned, it is concluded that the
Corporate Debtor’s project has not been deregistered by RERA as on
date.
III. Number of flats already taken possession:
Conclusion: It is concluded that 130 units out of the total of 672 have
already been taken possession of.”
d. The said IA-1742-2023 was heard on several dates and on 16.08.2023,
taking note of the objections raised by the Applicants/Home Buyers to
the report submitted by the Court Commissioner, this Adjudicating
Authority directed the Corporate Debtor to file a status report
alongwith an affidavit indicating therein as to what steps the Corporate
Debtor has taken for giving possession of the flats in question to the
Applicants/Home Buyers and also with regard to the various objections
taken by the Applicants/Home Buyers to the report submitted by the
Court Commissioner.
e. Pursuant to the said order dated 16.08.2023, the Corporate Debtor
filed a status report on 03.09.2023. Further on the request made by
the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Court Commissioner, permission was
granted to the Court Commissioner to inspect the premises and verify
the report submitted by the Corporate Debtor after giving notice to all
the stakeholders. Vide order dated 06.09.2023, the Court
Commissioner was again directed to file the status report. Accordingly,
the Court Commissioner submitted Second Inspection report on
05.10.2023.
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 7 of 16
f. In the hearing, conducted on 12.10.2023, Ld. Counsel appearing for
the Applicants/Financial Creditors raised certain objections stating
that the occupancy certificate has not yet been issued by the GNIDA.
He also raised certain issues w.r.t. the lift and underground parking.
13. Mr. P. Nagesh, Ld. Counsel at this stage submitted that a Revision Petition
was filed before the Principal Secretary vide Appeal No. 5844/77-4-
23/Appeal 63/23 against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by GNIDA,
while considering the applications filed by M/s. Rudra Buildwell
Construction Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor herein with respect to the
policy of the authority regarding grant of zero period which was cancelled
vide order dated 19.03.2020. The Principal Secretary vide order dated
26.09.2023 set aside the said cancellation order passed by the GNIDA and
directed the GNIDA to issue occupancy certificate in favour of the
Corporate Debtor on completion of all formalities. The Principal Secretary
directed that all bills pertaining to issuance of occupancy certificate shall
be recalculated and 25% of the same be recovered within three months
and remaining amount should be recovered in half yearly installments.
14. Therefore, Mr. P. Nagesh, Ld. Counsel has submitted that necessary
actions in accordance with the order passed by the Principal Secretary will
be taken and every effort will be made to hand over possession to the
Applicants. He further sought permission to file an undertaking by way
of an affidavit. Since the occupancy certificate has to be issued by the
GNIDA, the Adjudicating Authority thought it appropriate to issue notice
to the GNIDA and directed it to file response. The Corporate Debtor filed
an affidavit/undertaking in compliance with the order dated 12.10.2023.
15. On 31.10.2023, the GNIDA was directed to file an affidavit indicating
therein the time to be taken by the GNIDA for complying with the order
dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Principal Secretary, Industrial
Development, Section 4, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow. The
GNIDA was also directed to indicate the amount to be paid by the
Corporate Debtor to the GNIDA for issuance of occupancy certificate.
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 8 of 16
16. On 02.01.2024, it was brought to the notice of this Adjudicating Authority
by the Corporate Debtor by way of an additional affidavit whereby a copy
of the notification dated 21.12.2023 issued by the UP Government for
resolution of Real Estate Projects in UP pursuant to Mr. Amitabh Kant’s
report was filed.
Clause 4 of Para 7.1 of the said report stipulates that the scheme will be
applicable only in cases if the matters before the NCLT or Court are
withdrawn. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Home Buyers, on instructions
from his clients submitted that the Applicants will not withdraw the
present matter and would like to pursue the present application filed
under Section 7 of the Code.
17. Accordingly, the matter was heard on merits on 09.02.2024 and orders
were reserved.
18. The main objection taken by the Respondent/Corporate Debtor herein is
that the Home Buyers have obtained a decree from the UP RERA and
therefore, the status and character of the Applicants herein has changed
from being a ‘Financial Creditor’ to ‘Decree Holder’.
19. In response to the said objection, the Applicants have stated that the
complaint before the UP RERA was filed by the Flat Buyers Association
known as “Rudra KBNOWS Flat Buyers Association” and not by the
present Applicants.
20. To answer this issue, we rely upon a judgement passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in “Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023” in the case of
“Vishal Chelani & Ors. Vs. Debashis Nanda”
This case arose out of an order passed by the Hon’ble NCLAT, New Delhi
which held that a beneficiary of a decree by Uttar Pradesh Real Estate
Regulatory Authority can be treated differently from other Home Buyers
allottees. In the said case, the Home Buyers had approached the UP RERA
aggrieved by the delay in completion of the project, which directed the
refund of amounts deposited by the Applicants together with interest.
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 9 of 16
Since the CIRP was initiated and a Resolution Plan was presented before
the Adjudicating Authority in the Resolution Plan a distinction was made
between the Home Buyers who had approached the UP RERA and secured
orders in their favour and those who did not do so. The Home buyers who
did not approach the authorities under RERA Act were given the benefit
of 50% better terms than that given to those who approached RERA or
who were decree holders. While dealing with the said issues, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held in paragraph 8 of its judgement which is
reproduced below:
“...8. The Resolution Professional’s view appears to be that once an
allottee seeks remedies under RERA, and opts for return of money in
terms of the order made in her favour, it is not open for her to be
treated in the class of home buyer. This Court is unpersuaded by the
submission. It is only home buyers that can approach and seek
remedies under RERA – no others. In such circumstances, to treat a
particular segment of that class differently for the purposes of another
enactment, on the ground that one or some of them had elected to
take back the deposits together with such interest as ordered by the
competent authority, would be highly inequitable. As held in Natwar
Agarwal (HUF) (Supra) by the Mumbai Bench of National Company
Law Tribunal the underlying claim of an aggrieved party is
crystallized in the form of a Court order or decree. That does not alter
or disturb the status of the concerned party - in the present case of
allottees as financial creditors. Furthermore, Section 238 of the IBC
contains a non obstante clause which gives overriding effect to its
provisions. Consequently its provisions acquire primacy, and cannot
be read as subordinate to the RERA Act. In any case, the distinction
made by the R.P. is artificial; it amounts to “hyper classification” and
falls afoul of Article 14. Such an interpretation cannot therefore, be
countenanced.”
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 10 of 16
21. In view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, we do not accept the contention of the Respondents herein that the
character of the Applicants/Home Buyers has changed from Homebuyers
to Decree-holders is not maintainable after obtaining the RERA orders and
therefore the Application filed under section 7 is complete.
22. From the conspectus of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the
only thing that emerges is that the Corporate Debtor has failed to give
delivery of possession of the flats to the Applicants herein and thereby has
committed default. Thus, the Applicants/Financial Creditors have
established that the debt is due and there is default committed by the
Corporate Debtor. Therefore, in our considered view, the CIRP is ought to
be initiated against the Corporate Debtor.
23. In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is ordered as follows: -
i. The Application bearing IB-72(ND)/2022 filed by the Applicants under
section 7 of the Code read with Rule 4 of the Adjudicating Authority
Rules for initiating CIRP against the Respondent is admitted.
ii. We also declare a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code. The
necessary consequences of imposing the moratorium flow from the
provisions of Section 14(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Code. Thus, the
following prohibitions are imposed:
“(a) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or
proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including execution of any
judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration
panel or other authority;
(b) Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the
Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial
interest therein;
(c) Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest
created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any
action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 11 of 16
(d) The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor, where such
property is occupied by or in the possession of the Corporate Debtor.
[Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified
that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, a licence, permit, registration, quota, concession,
clearance or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government,
State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other
authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force,
shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency,
subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current
dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit,
registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right
during the moratorium period;]”
iii. It is made clear that the provisions of moratorium shall not apply to
transactions which might be notified by the Central Government or the
supply of the essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor as
may be specified, are not to be terminated or suspended or interrupted
during the moratorium period. In addition, as per the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 which has come into force
w.e.f. 06.06.2018, the provisions of moratorium shall not apply to the
surety in a contract of guarantee to the Corporate Debtor in terms of
Section 14(3)(b) of the Code.
iv. The Applicants have proposed the name of Mr. Mohit Goyal as the
Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) having address: 17, LGF,
Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092. His Email id is
camohitgoyal@[Link]. His registration number is IBBI/IPA-
001/IP-P02395/2021-22/13636. The Applicants filed a copy of the
Consent Issued by Mr. Mohit Goyal in Form 2, Written Communication
by proposed IRP, as per the requirement of Rule 9(l) of the Adjudicating
Authority Rules along with the Certificate of Registration and
Authorization for Assignment in Form B.
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 12 of 16
Accordingly, Mr. Mohit Goyal is appointed as IRP.
v. In pursuance of Section 13(2) of the Code, we direct the IRP, as the
case may be to make a public announcement immediately with regard
to the admission of this application under Section 7 of the Code. The
expression immediately means within three days as clarified by
Explanation to Regulation 6(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution
Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
vi. During the CIRP period, the management of the Corporate Debtor shall
vest in the IRP/RP, in terms of Section 17 of the IBC. The officers and
managers of the Corporate Debtor shall provide all documents in their
possession and furnish every information in their knowledge to the IRP
within one week from the date of receipt of this order, in default of
which coercive steps will follow. There shall be no future opportunity
given in this regard.
vii. The IRP is expected to take full charge of the Corporate Debtor’s assets,
and documents without any delay whatsoever. He is also free to take
police assistance and this Court hereby directs the Police Authorities
to render all assistance as may be required by the IRP in this regard.
viii. The IRP or the RP, as the case may be shall submit to this Adjudicating
Authority periodical report with regard to the progress of the CIRP in
respect of the Corporate Debtor.
ix. The Financial Creditors shall deposit a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakh Only) with the IRP to meet the expense to perform the
functions assigned to him in accordance with Regulation 6 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution
Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016. The needful shall be
done within one week from the date of receipt of this order by the
Financial Creditors. The amount however be subject to adjustment by
the Committee of Creditors, as accounted for by IRP and shall be paid
back to the Financial Creditors.
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 13 of 16
x. In terms of Section 7(7) of the Code, the Registry is hereby directed to
communicate a copy of the order to the Financial Creditors, the
Corporate Debtor, the IRP and the Registrar of Companies, NCT of
Delhi and Haryana, by Speed Post and by email, at the earliest but not
later than seven days from today.
xi. The Registrar of Companies shall update his website by updating the
status of the Corporate Debtor and specific mention regarding
admission of this petition must be notified.
xii. The Registry is further directed to send a copy of this order to the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) for their record.
xiii. A certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon
compliance with all requisite formalities.
24. Intervention P.-37/2022
i. The present Intervention Petition has been filed by Rudra Buyers
Welfare Association, the Applicant under Section 60(5) of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking impleadment of the
Applicant as the party in the main matter. The Applicant seeks the
following reliefs:
“1. Allow the present application;
2. Issue directions for impleading applicant as party respondent in
C.P.(IB) NO 72/2022 titled Priti Rawat Pandey v Rudra Buildwell
Construction Pvt. Ltd.:
3. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper in fact and circumstances of the present case.”
ii. The Applicant is a Homebuyer Association having its members as
the allottees who have booked flats in the Real Estate Project-
KBNOWS Apartments being developed by the Corporate Debtor. The
Applicant association has been incorporated with objects for making
best efforts for the welfare of Homebuyers of real estate project-
KBNOWS.
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 14 of 16
iii. In view of the order passed in (IB)–72(ND)/2022, we do not deem it
appropriate to entertain this application. Accordingly, the
Intervention P.-37/2022 stands dismissed and disposed of.
25. IA-5445/2023
i. The present application has been filed by Mr. A. C. Banerjee & 17
Ors., the Applicants under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company
Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 for seeking impleadment of the Applicants
as the party in the main matter. The Applicants seeks the following
reliefs:
“i) Allow the Applicants be impleaded as Financial Creditors No.84
to 101 in C.P.(IB) NO. 72/2022 in the interest of justice;
ii) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.”
ii. The Applicants had paid a Principal Amount of debt amounting to Rs.
6,66,39,008/- plus Interest on the Principal amount at the rate of
18% per annum from the dates of Payments/disbursements made to
the Corporate Debtor till the date of final realization. The Applicants
made the payment to the Corporate Debtor on various dates from
2012 to 2015 towards the booking of their flat in the Real Estate
Project in question.
iii. In view of the order passed in (IB)–72(ND)/2022, we do not deem it
appropriate to entertain this application. Accordingly, IA-5445/2023
the stands dismissed and disposed of.
26. IA-1178/2023
i. The present application has been filed by Ms. Tina Dutt & 4 Ors., the
Applicants under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 15 of 16
Rules, 2016 for seeking impleadment of the Applicants as the party
in the main matter. The Applicants seeks the following reliefs:
“i) Allow the Applicants be impleaded as Financial Creditors No. 79
to 83 in C.P.(IB) NO. 72/2022 in the interest of justice;
ii) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.”
ii. The Applicants had paid a Principal Amount of debt amounting to Rs.
1,97,13,921/- plus Interest on the Principal amount at the rate of
18% per annum from the dates of Payments/disbursements made to
the Corporate Debtor till the date of final realization. The Applicants
made the payment to the Corporate Debtor on various dates from
2012 to 2015 towards the booking of their flat in the Real Estate
Project in question.
iii. In view of the order passed in (IB)–72(ND)/2022, we do not deem it
appropriate to entertain this application. Accordingly, IA-1178/2023
the stands dismissed and disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ATUL CHATURVEDI) (BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Intervention P.-37/2022, IA-5445/2023, IA-1178/2023 and IB-72/ND/2022
Date of Order: 15.04.2024
Page 16 of 16