Flat Buyer Welfare Association & Ors vs Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1396 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has been admitted without the Adjudicating Authority being informed of a subsequent statutory order that transfers the corporate debtor's project to other persons, and that order bears on the CIRP process, the admission order cannot stand; the matter must be remitted for fresh decision after those persons are heard, because the Adjudicating Authority must consider such subsequent events before passing any order under Section 9. Persons who, under a statutory order of the HRERA Authority under Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, have been handed over the project and have stepped into the shoes of the promoter are entitled to be impleaded in the Section 9 proceedings and to file their reply, and their submissions must be considered by the Adjudicating Authority before it decides the application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Flat Buyer Welfare Association, Blue Solitaire Tower C ....Appellants & Ors.
Vs.
Dhingra Jardine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Preeti Kashyap, Mr. Ankit Sharma, Mr. Varun Pandit, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Dushyant Yadav, Advocate for R-3. Mr. Gautam Singhal, RP (In person). Ms. Swaralipi Deb Roy, Advocate for RP.
ORDER
29.08.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Learned
Counsel appearing for the Operational Creditor and Learned Counsel for the
Resolution Professional. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
16.09.2022 passed by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-V) by which order Adjudicating Authority
has admitted Section 9 application filed by the Operational Creditor.
2. Operational Creditor filed an application under Section 9 claiming to be a
contractor appointed by the Corporate Debtor for carrying out the construction
and appellant's claim that there are total dues of Rs. 3,88,12,122/-. It is
submitted that Adjudicating Authority has issued notice on the application of
Section 9. The Corporate Debtor appeared but did not file any reply nor
Cont'd.../ -2-
contested the matter. Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order finding the
debt and default admitted Section 9 application and appointed the IRP.
3. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been filed by Flat Buyer
Welfare Associations. There are four appellants in this appeal who claimed to
be the association of Flat Buyers of 4 towers namely; (i) Flat Buyer Welfare
Association, Blue Solitaire, Tower C, (ii) Flat Buyers Welfare Association
Solitaire, Tower D, (iii) Tower E, California Country Buyers Association, Sector
80, Faridabad, (iv) Flat Buyers Welfare Association, Gemini Groove Duplex,
REGD Sector 80, Faridabad.
4. The appellant's case in the appeal is that the Corporate Debtor having
unable to complete the construction, the complaints were filed before the
HRERA Authority and an order under Section 8 was passed on 15.03.2022 by
which the project was handed over to the appellants to complete the projects.
In view of the order passed HRERA Authority the towers are completed and the
home buyers were also residing in some of them.
5. It is submitted that Corporate Debtor neither appeared before the
Adjudicating Authority nor brought all subsequent events including the order
passed under Section 8 of the HRERA Authority, hence, the Adjudicating
Authority being unaware of the subsequent development and statutory order
has admitted Section 9 application. It is submitted that as per the order of the
HRERA Authority passed in Section 8 the appellant's have steps into the shoes
of the Corporate Debtor and they were required to be heard before any decision
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1396 of 2022 -3-
is taken to proceed with insolvency. He submits that they also cannot be held
liable for any past debt.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Operational Creditor submits that
there are dues of the Operational Creditor which remained unpaid, it is further
submitted that appellant's are not representing the entire project and they are
only representing three towers. It is submitted that Adjudicating Authority has
rightly admitted Section 9 application.
7. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8. The application under Section 9 was filed in the year 2021 inspite of
notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority Corporate Debtor did not file any
reply and apparently did not contest the proceedings. Appellants have brought
on the record the copy of the order passed by HRERA Authority dated
15.03.2022. In paragraph 13 of the order of the HRERA Authority following has
been directed:
"13. Authority further decides to issue following directions/ guidelines to Association of Towers Gemini Grove Duplex and Blue Solitaire Tower-C who have been handed over their respective towers for completion at their level: -
i) Record of Income and Expenditure should be maintained by the Association meticulously. Statement of all receipts and payments made during a month should be placed before General Body of the Association. Minutes of said meetings of the General Body should be placed before Authority on the dates of hearing.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1396 of 2022 -4-
ii) All payments should be approved by Governing Body of the respective Associations.
iii) After handing over of Tower Gemini Grove and Blue Solitaire to respective Associations, they have stepped into the shoes of promoters of the project in respect of their Towers. An issue was raised by one of the representatives that respondent- promoter is not allowing the Association to function freely, and in fact is causing damage to the structure. Authority hereby clarifies that in pursuance of Section 8 of RERA Act. 2016 now respective Associations have become promoters of the project. They are like owners in possession of the project. Authority decides to send a copy of this order to the Police Commissioner, Faridabad with a direction that on a request made by respective Association, full police protection should be provided to them and miscreants, if any. who stops the Association from working freely should be proceeded against as per law.
iv) SE/XEN/SDO concerned of DHBVN is directed to release temporary connections to respective Associations of Towers Gemini Grove Duplex and Blue Solitaire Tower-C whenever they approach them.
v) Associations shall be deemed to have notinherited any liability which may have been incurred by respondent-promoter in the past. The liability, if any, in respect of these Towers which may have been incurred by respondent-promoter shall remain the obligation of respondent-promoter only to be discharged. In simple words, the Associations have taken over the project free from all charges, liabilities or incumbrances. All local authorities or State authorities may raise their demand, if any, against respondent-promoter in respect of liabilities incurred prior to taking over of the project.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1396 of 2022 -5-
vi) Respective Associations are free to deal with non-member allottees or non-paying allottees at their own level in any manner consider appropriate. However, decision in such regard should be taken in the General Body meeting of the Associations".
9. The subsequent events including the order dated 15.03.2022 indicate
that appellant were handed over the certain towers for construction and they
have steps into the shoes of promoters for the purposes of the project. Before
the Adjudicating Authority neither the Corporate Debtor nor the Operational
Creditor brought all these facts into the notice of the Adjudicating Authority
and Adjudicating authority without taking into consideration the subsequent
events which have bearing on the CIRP process has admitted Section 9
application by initiating CIRP.
10. The appellants who have been handed over the projects and who under
the statutory orders have submissions which need to be looked into by the
Adjudicating Authority before passing any order under Section 9.
11. We, thus, are of the view that the order impugned cannot be sustained
and is set aside, however, the application IB-625(ND) of 2021 is revived before
the Adjudicating Authority to be preceded and decided again in accordance
with law.
12. Appellants are impleaded to the Section 9 application and they are
permitted to file their reply.
13. Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that CIRP
process was carried for some period and expenses have been incurred, it shall
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1396 of 2022 -6-
be always open for the Resolution Professional to file an appropriate application
before Adjudicating Authority for fee and expenses.
14. In view of setting aside the impugned order the Resolution Professional
stands discharged.
15. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
sa/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1396 of 2022
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free