Anuj Gaur vs Som Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (Through Rp) & Ors

[Arising out of Order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench - IV, in Company Petition No. (IB) - 67(ND)/2022.]

IN THE MATTER OF: Anuj Gaur Son of Shri R.S. Sharma, aged about 42 years, R/o C-218, Surajmal Vihar, East Delhi, Delhi - 110092. ...Appellant

Versus

1. M/s Som Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Through Resolution Professional Shri Sumit Shukla Having Office at : 401, Tower-C, I-Thum, Sector, 62 NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh 201301 Email : cirpsomresorts@gmail.com ...Respondent No. 1

2. Yadubir Sajwan 4206, Sector - 4C, Aadinrh Apartment, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012 ...Respondent No. 2

3. Ram Saran 748, Sector 11, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012 ...Respondent No. 3

4. Shri Krishan 10C/247, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012 ...Respondent No. 4

5. Rakesh Joshi 44, General Mahadev Singh Road, Infront of Hanuman Temple, Shivalik Puram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001 ...Respondent No. 5

6. Paramjit Singh Gulati 219, Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Nagar 2, New Delhi 110024 ...Respondent No. 6

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 1 | 18 7. Vishwajit Singh Nagar 7/2, Nagar Hospital, Patel Nagar, Bhoor, Bulandsahar, U.P. 203001 ...Respondent No. 7

8. Rupa Anand 822, DD Janta Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi 110093. ...Respondent No. 8

9. Satyavir Singh Mailk 84/602, East End Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi 110096. ...Respondent No. 9

10 Lata Devi 49, Ishwar Puri, Meerut, U.P. 250002 ...Respondent No. 10

11 Anita Saxena B2/902, Krishna Apra Garden, Vaibhav Khand, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201014 ...Respondent No. 11

12 Parveen Verma 410, 2nd Floor, Sector 15, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012 ...Respondent No. 12

13 Poonam Ram Kishan F-41, Katwarja, Sarai Village, South-West, Delhi 110016. ...Respondent No. 13

14 Govind Shankar Srivastav 9/951, Sector 9, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012. ...Respondent No. 14

15 Poojan Kailash Singhania 9/951, Sector 9, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012. ...Respondent No. 15

16 Asha Srivastav 9/951, Sector 9, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012. ...Respondent No. 16

17 Rajni Tyagi A33B, Vidhya Vihar, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi 110059 ...Respondent No. 17

18 Ram Kumar Tyagi A33B, Vidhya Vihar, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi 110059 ...Respondent No. 18

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 2 | 18 19 Brajeshwar Kumar J-30C, J Block, Ashok Vihar Phase 1, Ashok Vihar, North-West Delhi, Delhi 110052. ...Respondent No. 19

20 Saket Katara 598, Sector 4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P 201010 ...Respondent No. 20

21 Padmini Nair B64, First Floor, Near MMX Mall Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201037 ...Respondent No. 21

22 Preeti Srivastava A749, Landmark Convention Centre, Indra Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. 226016 ...Respondent No. 22

23 Sumit Manshinghka C-1104, Gaur Green Vista Nyay Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201014 ...Respondent No. 23

24 Mahipal Singh Rawar WE101-102, Gali No. 11, Mohand Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi 110059 ...Respondent No. 24

25 Dharampal Rathore 12/486, Sector 12, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012 ...Respondent No. 25

26 Lokesh Kumar Goswami 222, Satyam Khand, Sector 19, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012 ...Respondent No. 26

27 Vinita Srivastav 53, Tulsi Vihar, Indra Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. 226016. ...Respondent No. 27

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Paras Mittal, Ms. Sachi Mittal and Mr. Tushar Tyagi, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Alok Dhir, Ms. Varsha Banerjee and Ms. Udita Singh, Advocate for R-2 to R-27. Ms. Anusha Sarkar, Advocate for RP.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 3 | 18

(21.07.2023)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency

& Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') against the 'impugned order'

dated 02.08.2022 in Company Petition No. (IB)-67(ND)/2022 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench,

- IV), whereby the 'Adjudicating Authority', allowed application filed by the

Homebuyers under Section 7 of the Code.

2. The Appellant is 10% Shareholder and the Suspended Director of the

Corporate Debtor. Aggrieved by the same, the 'Appellant' has preferred the

present appeal.

3. Heard the Counsel for Parties and perused the records made available

including cited judgments.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant gave the facts of the case and

circumstances which led to the present appeal. Learned Counsel for the

Appellant stated that the Corporate Debtor launched one commercial-cum-

residential project under name 'Casa Italia' and for purpose of marketing, an

agreement was signed with M/s Cosmic Structure Limited (in short

'Cosmic') to market the project in lieu of commission of 10% of sale price of

the unit.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the said marketing

agency Cosmic misused naiveness of the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor

and sold units of the Corporate Debtor directly and appropriated the money

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 4 | 18 received, whereas, as per Agreement with the Corporate Debtor, the role of

Cosmic was limited to only marketing the project and not to sale directly.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant mentioned that 26 Financial

Creditors/ Homebuyers/ Respondents in the present case paid principal

sum of Rs. 6,60,18,065/-, whereas, the Corporate Debtor received only

Rs. 1,45,03,185/- from the various Homebuyers including 26 Respondents

in the present appeal.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Cosmic was also

constructing a project under name 'Cosmic Corporate Park' and vide order

dated 11.01.2017, the Delhi High Court appointed an official liquidator for

Cosmic in a winding up petition filed by the Homebuyers of Cosmic. The

said liquidator of Cosmic sealed project of the Corporate Debtor which was

subsequently de-sealed on 23.05.2019. Learned Counsel for the Appellant

stated that subsequent to order of the Delhi High Court, the Corporate

Debtor paid Rs. 14, 50, 318.50/- to the official liquidator of Cosmic and also

a sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- along with simple interest of 9% (total 38,00,000/-

) to one Mr. Rajeev Garg alleged allottee of the Corporate Debtor. Learned

Counsel for the Appellant further stated that he also deposited Rs.

25,99,612/- towards security with the official liquidator of the Cosmic.

8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Respondent No. 2 -

Yadubir Sajwan also registered a FIR u/s 406, 420, 120 B of the IPC with

economic offense wing Delhi against the Suspended Director of the

Corporate Debtor. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that a

Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.09.2018 (in short Settlement dated

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 5 | 18 14.09.2018) was entered into between the Association of Homebuyers/

Corporate Debtor and Mr. Sushant Muttreja, Ex- Director of Cosmic.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as per Clause 7 of the

settlement dated 14.09.2018, the Corporate Debtor was entitled to receive

all payments made by the allottees to the Cosmic and to be adjusted by the

Corporate Debtor i.e. Rs. 4,38,35,462/- with the understanding that the

Corporate Debtor would claim the said amount from the official liquidator of

cosmic. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further elaborated that as per

Clause 8 of the settlement Rs. 1,45,00,00,000/- already transferred to the

Corporate Debtor was to be retained by the Corporate Debtor. Learned

Counsel for the Appellant stated that similarly Homebuyer were liable to pay

Rs. 1,00,000/- per month to the Corporate Debtor towards construction cost

of the property.

9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Corporate Debtor

was supposed to hand over the completed project within 18 months from

the date of de-sealing and in its failure on part of the Corporate Debtor, the

Homebuyers were entitled for 18% interest and similarly in case of failure on

part of Homebuyers to make due payments, Homebuyers were to pay

interest of 18% to the Corporate Debtor.

10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also referred to Clause 6 of the

settlement dated 14.09.2018. Learned Counsel for the Appellant alleged

that Homebuyers did not honour their commitment but sought to enforce

the obligation of the Corporate Debtor as per Settlement dated 14.09.2018.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 6 | 18

11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Homebuyers

have no documents to prove that they had booked units in the Casa Italia

Project and he did not receive any payment from the Homebuyers and

whatever payments have been received by the Corporate Debtor, the same

have been refunded.

12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant alleged that Homebuyers

Association did not submit NoC to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala

House, Delhi seeking defreezing of the account of the Corporate Debtor.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant further alleged that Homebuyer

Association also failed to provide NoC required for filing of petition for

quashing of FIR filed against the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor.

13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed the conduct of

Homebuyers who failed to provide documentary evidence to the official

liquidator of Cosmic, in the absence of which the official liquidator did not

release the due amount to the Corporate Debtor.

14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant emphasised that since the

Corporate Debtor did not receive any money from the Homebuyers, there

was no question of any financial debt, and hence Section 7 Application was

admitted wrongly by the Adjudicating Authority.

15. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Funds, [(2021) 6 SCC 436] according

to which before arriving any conclusion, default of payment of debt is

required to be resolved.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 7 | 18

16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the letter of allotment,

builder buyer agreement and the payment receipts annexed with the

application under Section 7 of the Code has been brought to the notice of

the Corporate Debtor for the first time, since he was not privy to any of

these documents earlier.

17. Learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed the Adjudicating Authority

who proceeded on the wrong assumption that Cosmic and the Corporate

Debtor were hands in gloves with each other and invoked theory of 'lifting of

corporate veil' only on the premise that one Mr. Sandeep Pahwa was

Director both in Corporate Debtor and in Cosmic. Learned Counsel for the

Appellant clarified that although Mr. Sandeep Pahwa was appointed as

Director in the Corporate Debtor on 01.07.2013, whereas Mr. Sandeep

Pahwa was appointed as Director in Cosmic on 28.04.2016 and therefore

the finding of Adjudicating Authority that the Corporate Debtor and Cosmic

are one and same is wrong and unlawful. Learned Counsel for the Appellant

further stated that corporate veil in IBC matters should be rarely lifted and

cannot be made basis for the initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process (in short 'CIRP'). Learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed the

Adjudicating Authority who wrongly concluded that Cosmic received the

payments from the Homebuyers on behalf of the Corporate Debtor by doing

selective reading of the settlement dated 14.09.2018, ignoring that the

Homebuyers did not keep their promise of the settlement.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 8 | 18 Learned Counsel for the Appellant mentioned that there is no

connection whatsoever between the Corporate Debtor and the Cosmic except

two agreements executed between them dated 10.10.2013 and 14.09.2018.

18. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that except for 16

Homebuyers who were the applicants before the NCLT i.e. Respondent

Numbers, 2,5,8,12,13,7,20,21,22 & 24 have not deposited any amount with

the Corporate Debtor and thus, they are not even Financial Creditor of the

Corporate Debtor in terms of the 5 (8) (f) of the Code.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant concluding his arguments

emphasised that the Impugned Order has been issued wrongly, based on

incorrect facts and on wrong assumptions that there has been nexus

between the Corporate Debtor and the Cosmic and also Cosmic received

money from Financial Creditor/ Homebuyers on behalf of the Corporate

Debtor. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged to set aside the Impugned

Order and allow his appeal.

19. Learned Counsel for the Respondents denied all the averments made

by the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Respondents stated that on the

contrary they have been victims of the fraud played by the Corporate Debtor

as they are Homebuyers and booked their units. Learned Counsel for the

Respondents stated that during the period 2015 or so the Respondents/

Homebuyers booked space in the Casa Italia and made the payments to the

Corporate Debtor and its agent Cosmic. Learned Counsel for the

Respondents stated that the Homebuyers and the Corporate Debtor entered

into the Builder Buyer Agreements according to which the Corporate Debtor

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 9 | 18 was required to handover the possession of units within 36 months and

admittedly the Corporate Debtor failed to do so till date.

20. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that after waiting

long, they filed the application under Section 7 of the Code, before the

Adjudicating Authority which was rightly admitted.

21. Learned Counsel for the Respondents stated that as per Section 7, the

Adjudicating Authority is only to satisfy that there has been debt over Rs. 1

Crore and there has been default before admitting the application and in

case of Homebuyers only additional requirement is that atleast 10% of the

Homebuyers should have filed the application. Learned Counsel for the

Respondents further stated that the Casa Italia project had 69 allotees and

the application under Section 7 was filed by 26 home allottees which is more

than required threshold of seven allotees in the present case.

22. Learned Counsel for the Respondents emphasised that the Corporate

Debtor itself has admitted debt of more than Rs. 1 Crore received from the

Respondent Homebuyers as evident from reply filed by the Corporate Debtor

in the present appeal as well as the reply filed by the Corporate Debtor to

the economic offense wing. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted

that the Appellant has categorically admitted a total receipt of

Rs. 2,10,48,733/- from the 16 allottees, which meets the threshold

requirement of Rs. 1 Crore by 23.18% allottees who filed Section 7 Petition.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents stated that the Appellant in

Annexure A-1 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.09.2018 clearly

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 10 | 18 admitted the direct disbursal of Rs. 1,88,61,167/- by Allottees, which again

meets the threshold requirement of Rs. 1 Crore.

In addition, the Appellant has in its reply to economic offence wing,

New Delhi filed by the Respondents against the suspended management of

the Corporate Debtor, duly admitted a total direct disbursal of

Rs. 2,15,48,314/- which again meets the threshold requirement of Rs. 1

Crore. Further, in the said Reply, the Appellant has also admitted disbursal

of Rs. 1.45 Crores from its Agent, M/s Cosmic Structure Ltd. against the

bookings made by the Respondents herein.

23. Learned Counsel for the Respondents mentioned that they have

prepared a summary of admissions by the Corporate Debtor of the money

received from various allottees/ Homebuyers which has been furnished as

Annexure R-1 of the Written Submission filed on behalf of Respondent

Nos. 2 to 27 in the present appeal which clearly establishes these facts are

beyond any doubts. Learned Counsel for the Respondents cited the

judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in M/s Innoventive

Industries Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank & Anr. [(Civil Appeal Nos. 8337-8338 of

2017] (Para 28, 30) to support his case against the Corporate Debtor for

CIRP.

24. Learned Counsel for the Respondents castigated the behaviour of the

Corporate Debtor who has been taking different stand in the present case

and to buttress his point, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents stated

that on one side the Corporate Debtor has denied the existence of any

relationship between the Homebuyer by denying existence of the letter of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 11 | 18 allotment, builder buyer agreements and the payment receipts and on the

other hand the Corporate Debtor has furnished the Written Submissions not

only to the Adjudicating Authority but also to the economic offense wing

Delhi and in the present appeal that he has received only part money and

not full money. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further stated that

similarly the Corporate Debtor has been acknowledging the settlement dated

14.09.2018 and especially Clause 6 under which he is willing to make part

payment back to the Homebuyers/ Respondents. Learned Counsel for the

Respondents strongly urged this Appellate Tribunal to take note of such

dubious steps taken by the Corporate Debtor only to deny the legitimate

claims of the Homebuyers who have already suffered long for more than one

decade despite making payments the Corporate Debtor out of their hard-

earned money.

25. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also refuted the stand taken by

the Corporate Debtor that Cosmic was not authorised to receive money on

his behalf and denied booking made by which is evident from the agreement

between the Corporate Debtor and the Cosmic.

26. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that even for

argument's sake, it is presumed that the Corporate Debtor did not receive

the entire money, undisputedly and admittedly by the Corporate Debtor

itself, they have received more than Rs. 1 Crore from the Homebuyers which

is good enough for admitting the application under Section 7 of the Code.

27. Learned Counsel for the Respondents denied the allegation that they

did not cooperate the Corporate Debtor and did not furnish the required

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 12 | 18 documents to facilitate completion of the project. Learned Counsel for the

Respondents cited that NoC for de-sealing of the project was already given

by the Respondents pursuant to Delhi High Court order passed dated

30.01.2019 and similarly NoC for purpose of defreezing of bank account of

the Corporate Debtor was also furnished by the Homebuyers pursuant to

which Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House passed the order dated

09.10.2019 for defreezing of the account of the Corporate Debtor. Learned

Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that they have sent an email

dated 21.06.2019 giving NoC for quashing of FIR No. 108/2017 against the

Promoters which was not pursued by the Corporate Debtor for reason

known to Corporate Debtor only.

28. Learned Counsel for the Respondents countered the averment of the

Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority ought not have lifted the corporate

veil and cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which

facilitate such lifting by judicial forum as held in case Life Insurance

Corporation of India Vs. Escorts Ltd. [(1986) AIR 1370] (Para 5), Delhi

Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Company Ltd. [(1996)

4 SCC 622] (Para 24, 25, 28) and Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish

Kumar Gupta (Civil Appeal No. 9402-9405 of 2018) (Para 34). Learned

Counsel for the Respondents stated that the present case is absolutely fit

case for lifting corporate veils since both the Corporate Debtor and the

Cosmic have worked in tandem to defraud the Financial Creditors/

Homebuyers.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 13 | 18

29. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also denied averments of the

Appellant of so-called alleged dispute between the Corporate Debtor and the

Cosmic and stated that such alleged dispute has nothing to do with the

rights of the Homebuyers in the present case. Learned Counsel for the

Respondents stated that in fact it is mere sham dispute only to deflect the

issues.

30. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that they are merely

Homebuyers who have suffered in the hands of the Corporate Debtor for

long and they are attempting to revise the project on their own by

submitting a Resolution Plan through its association which is pending for

adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority in I.A No. 2552/ND/2023.

31. Learned Counsel for the Respondents concluded his arguments, with

a request to set aside the appeal.

32. From the perusal of record made available to us and from the

averments of the parties the following issues emerges, which are required to

be deliberated and decided in order to dispose the present appeal before us.

These issues are :-

(I) Whether the Homebuyers paid money to Corporate Debtor or not to

meet the requirement of Section 7 of the Code and whether the

money paid to Cosmic, the marketing agent of the Corporate

Debtor, can be considered money paid to the Corporate Debtor

through Cosmic.

(II) Whether the Homebuyers/ Financial Creditors/ Respondents

herein failed to produce required documents and evidence of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 14 | 18 payments to the Corporate Debtor, in order to file application

under Section 7 of the Code.

(III) Whether the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority

erred in accepting Section 7 Application.

Since, all these issues are interconnected, we shall discuss and decide

together in the following discussions.

33. Admittedly, Cosmic was appointed as marketing agent by the

Corporate Debtor with clear mandate to market/ sale units in project Casa

Italia of the Corporate Debtor, in lieu of 10% commission. It is also

admitted fact that the Financial Creditors/ Homebuyers made the payment

as required from time to time to both the Corporate Debtor and Cosmic.

34. In terms of Section 7 of the Code, what is required be ascertained by

the Adjudicating Authority is existence of the financial debt between the

Corporate Debtors and the Financial Creditor. Section 7 allows the Financial

Creditor to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor upon occurrence of

default by the Corporate Debtor. It is noted that Homebuyers can initiate

the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor in terms of explanation to Section

5(8)(f) of the Code, where the developer after having received consideration

for the units sold, fail to comply with the terms of agreement entered into

with Homebuyers.

35. From the averments made by the parties, we note that the Financial

Creditors/ Homebuyers indeed enclosed and furnished the required

document including the letters of allotment, builder buyer agreements and

the payment receipts along with the application filed under Section 7 of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 15 | 18 Code, which clearly demonstrate the relationship between the Appellant and

the Respondents as Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditor. This also

establishes that indeed the Financial Creditor/ Homebuyers furnished the

required documents.

36. This Appellate Tribunal notes that at one time the Corporate Debtor

denies the existence of any relationship between the Homebuyer by denying

existence of the letters of allotment, builder buyer agreements and the

payment receipts and at other time, the Corporate Debtor himself has

mentioned and accepted in the Written Submissions not only to the

Adjudicating Authority but also to the economic offense wing Delhi and in

the present appeal that the Corporate Debtor has received, albeit/ allegedly

only part payments and not full payments from the Financial Creditor/

Homebuyers. We also note that similarly the Corporate Debtor has been

acknowledging the settlement dated 14.09.2018 with the Homebuyers along

with one of the Ex- Director of Cosmic and has been claiming that in terms

of Clause 6 under of the settlement dated 14.09.2018, the Corporate Debtor

is willing to return back the part payments to the Homebuyers. All these

implies clearly that indeed their exists financial debt between the Corporate

Debtor and the Homebuyers.

37. One more plea has been taken by the Corporate Debtor that he has

not received full payments from the Homebuyers as Cosmic, the marketing

agency appointed by the Corporate Debtor allegedly received some money

from the Homebuyers which was not received by the Corporate Debtor. In

this regard, the only issue is required to be examined and established by the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 16 | 18 Adjudicating Authority whether the financial debt between the Corporate

Debtor and the Homebuyers met the minimum threshold limit of Rs. 1

Crore.

38. We take into account the fact that the Appellant/ Corporate Debtor

has in the detailed statement of account of the Homebuyers, has

categorically admitted receipt of amount from 16 allottees, which is much

more than Rs. 1 Crore and meets the threshold requirement of Rs. 1 Crore

by allottees who filed Section 7 Petition.

We also note that from Settlement dated 14.09.2018 that there has

been the direct disbursal of Rs. 2,85,39,310/- by Allottees, which again

meets the threshold requirement of Rs. 1 Crore by allottees who filed Section

7 Petition.

From the averments during the hearing, it is observed that the

Appellant has in its reply to economic offence wing, New Delhi filed by the

Respondents against the suspended management of the Corporate Debtor,

the Corporate Debtor has admitted direct disbursal of amount by the

Homebuyers which again meets the threshold requirement of Rs. 1 Crore by

allottees who filed Section 7 Petition. Further, in the said Reply, the

Appellant/ Corporate Debtor has also admitted receipt of money from its

marketing agent, M/s Cosmic Structure Ltd. against the bookings made by

the Respondents herein.

39. From all above, it is clear that the Corporate Debtor has received

various payments from the Homebuyers which is much more than minimum

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 17 | 18 threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore and as such the Application filed under

Section 7 of the Code was rightly admitted by the Adjudicating Authority.

40. After careful consideration of all the facts, averments made by all

parties, cited judgments, we do not find any error in the challenged

'impugned order'. The 'Appeal' being devoid of any merit(s) is dismissed. No

costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, are closed.

[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Simran

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1131 of 2022 Page 18 | 18