Atul Kumar Kansal Resolution ... vs Owners Welfare Association Universal ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Atul Kumar Kansal ...Appellant

Versus Owners Welfare Association, Universal Trade Tower ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Piyush Singh, Ms. Riddhi Jain, Mr. Priyal Sakawali, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Abhinav Agarwal, Advocate for Intervenor. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra, Ms. Pooja Kapur, Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocates for Intervenor Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate Intervenor Advocate Yudhist Singhi, in I.A. No. 12 of 2023 Advocate Usha Singh, For Indusind Bank

ORDER

25.01.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Learned Counsel

appearing for the Respondent-Owners Welfare Association, Universal Trade

Tower as well as Intervener.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order passed by the Adjudicating

Authority dated 04.04.2022 by which I.A. No. 1473 of 2022 praying for various

reliefs have been rejected.

2

3. The Adjudicating Authority in the Order has observed that Resolution

Professional admits the fact that Project Universal Trade Tower is not subject of

the Resolution Plan hence the Court is not inclined to allow any prayers of the

Applicant.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant who is Resolution Professional submits

that Appellant is not denying the submission made before the Court that project

is not part of the Resolution Plan however under the conveyance deed certain

rights were of the Resolution Professional and there are already Applications (I.A.

No. 738 of 2019 and 500 of 2019) under Section 66 and 65 of the I&B Code,

2016 which are pending consideration.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that Resolution Plan

of the Corporate Debtor has already been approved and under the Resolution

Plan there is specific clause 8 where Universal Trade Tower has been dealt with

in following manner:

Sl. No. Name of Number Amount Provision under Status/Comments Project of claims (Rs. In Resolution Plan Crores) ... .... ..... ...... ...... ......

8 Universal 43 20.94 Rights of Project is complete Trade allottees to be and occupation Tower determined on certificate has been basis of the received. The entire outcome of area is fully sold to Application CA allottees, there is no No. 500/2019 asset belonging to for appointment Corporate Debtor in of local the Project. There is Commission overselling due to which is multiple duplicate sales made by

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 720 of 2022 3

pending [pg. Corporate Debtor 335, Vol-II] which would need to be resolved by the civil court and cannot be addressed in insolvency proceedings.

5. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid part of the Resolution Plan,

liberty was reserved to the RP to resolve the issue in the Civil Court.

6. We are of the view that when the Universal TradeTower is not the subject

matter of the Resolution Plan, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any

error in rejecting prayers made in I.A. No. 1473 of 2022. In so far as the

Applications which according to the Appellant have been filed for cancellation of

deed they are pending consideration, we do not see any reason to make any

observations with regard to such applications. These applications shall be

considered in accordance with law. It is however observed that with regard to the

pending I.As it shall be open for the parties to make such submission or to take

such steps as may be permissible in law.

With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 720 of 2022