Grand Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Nitin Batra & Ors

[Arising out of Order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Court VI, New Delhi in Inv. P/12/2024 in IB- 682/PB/2021]

In the matter of:

Grand Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Vs.

Nitin Batra & Ors. ...Respondents For Appellant: Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anmol Joshi, Mr. Anant Bajpai, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sahil Sethi, Mr. Samriddh Bindal and Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocates for R-1to3. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. NPS Chawla, Ms. Mahima Shekhawat, Mr. Jasjeet Sinha, Mr. Praney Sharma, Mr. Surekh Kant Baxy, Advocates. Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav H. Sethi, Mr. Deeptanshu Chandra, Mr. Rahul Pawar, Advocates for allottees. Mr. Saurab Kalia, Advocate for Mr. Dheeraj Sharma.

JUDGMENT

(15th May, 2024)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

The Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 27.02.2024

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),

Court VI, New Delhi by which Intervention Petition No. 12 of 2024 filed by the

Appellant, in CP IB- 682/PB/2021 has been rejected. Appellant aggrieved by 2

the order rejecting the Intervention Petition No. 12 of 2024 has come up in

this Appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal

are:-

2.1. On 12.10.2021, Company Petition being CP IB- 682/PB/2021 was filed

by the homebuyers of Festival City Project launched by the Corporate Debtors.

The Financial Creditors 215 in numbers filed Section 7 application alleging

default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in completing the project and

giving possession to the financial creditors. In the application, M/s. Anand

Infoedge Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as Corporate Debtor No. 1 who was a land

owing company, M/s. Mist Avenue Pvt. Ltd. as Corporate Debtor No.2 was

developer and M/s. Mist Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd. as Corporate Debtor No.3 was

another developer after cancelling the earlier Development Agreement. Section

7 application was filed on 12.10.2021 by the Financial Creditors i.e.

homebuyers. In Section 7 application filed by the financial creditors,

objections were filed by three Corporate Debtors raising objection regarding

maintainability of the appeal.

2.2. Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 21.10.2022 rejected the

applications filed by the Corporate Debtors raising objection regarding

maintainability and held that Section 7 petition filed by the financial creditors

is maintainable. Against the order dated 21.10.2022, three appeals were filed

by three Corporate Debtors being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1478

of 2022, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1506 of 2022 and Company

Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.127 of 2023. All the three appeals filed by three

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 3

Corporate Debtors, as noted above, were dismissed by judgment and order of

this Tribunal dated 17.11.2023. Against the order dated 17.11.2023

dismissing the appeal filed by Corporate Debtors, three Civil Appeals being

Civil Appeal No.7950-7951 of 2023, Civil Appeal No.7989 of 2023 and Civil

Appeal No.7958-7959 of 2023 were filed which were dismissed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court vide order dated 11.12.2023. After dismissal of all the three

appeals filed by the Corporate Debtors, an IA No. 3875 of 2023 was filed by

M/s. Disire Retail Pvt. Ltd. and others claiming to be unit holders in the

project and praying for dismissal of the main Company Petition, which IA

No.3875 of 2023 was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 25.07.2023.

Subsequent to the order dated 25.07.2023, Corporate Debtors filed three

separate applications to dismiss the main Company Petition making

allegation against the financial creditors. All the three applications filed by

Corporate Debtors were dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on

05.01.2024. Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the applications held

that the applicants (Corporate Debtors) is attempting to drag on the

proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority refrained the applicant (corporate

debtor) from filing frivolous applications in future so as to avoid imposition of

cost.

2.3. Against the order dated 05.01.2024 rejecting the applications appeal

was filed being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 96 of 2024 which appeal

came to be dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 29.01.2024. Against

the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by this Tribunal, an appeal was also filed

by the Corporate Debtor before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which appeal has

also been dismissed as withdrawn. After the aforesaid proceedings, two IAs

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 4

have been filed before the Adjudicating Authority seeking Intervention Petition

No. 11 of 2024 and Intervention Petition No. 12 of 2024. Intervention Petition

No.11 of 2024 was filed by applicant who had earlier filed an IA No.3875 of

2023 seeking dismissal of the main Company Petition which was already

dismissed. Intervention Petition No. 12 of 2024 was filed by present Appellant

claiming that they are holding 102 units in Festival City Project and they

sought intervention in the Company Petition. Intervention Petition No. 12 of

2024 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 27.02.2024, aggrieved

against which order this appeal has been filed.

3. We have heard Shri Anupam Lal Das, learned senior counsel appearing

for the Appellant, Shri Sahil Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent Nos.1 to 3, Shri Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel

appearing for Respondent No.6- Mist Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd., Shri Gaurav Mitra,

learned senior counsel has appeared for another set of homebuyers who have

filed intervention petition 12 of 2024.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that

the Appellants are holders of 105 units and they have filed their intervention

petition seeking intervention in the company petition because in event Section

7 application is admitted against the corporate debtor, the interest of the

applicant/appellant shall be prejudiced. Appellant is hopeful that the

corporate debtor shall be able to complete the project. The corporate debtor

has already filed a Scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013

before the Adjudicating Authority by filing a Company Petition for

consideration and approval of Scheme under Section 230 of the Companies

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 5

Act which company petition is still pending. It is submitted that in event the

Scheme is approved, construction shall be carried out by the corporate debtor

as per the scheme. Hence, initiation of CIRP under Section 7 shall be

prejudicial to the scheme which has now been proposed.

5. Shri Sahil Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1

to 3 who have filed Section 7 application has opposed the submissions of

counsel for the appellant and submits that the filing of the intervention

petition by the appellant is another attempt to delay disposal of Section 7

application. It is submitted that the corporate debtor from the very beginning

has been filing one after another applications making efforts to derail the CIRP

process and for the last more than 2 ½ years they have not permitted Section

7 application to proceed on merits. It is submitted that the application that

Section 7 is not maintainable has already been dismissed by the Adjudicating

Authority which order has been affirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In

the second round again, application was filed by the corporate debtor for

rejecting Section 7 application which too was dismissed by the Adjudicating

Authority, upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One set of the

homebuyers which had earlier filed application was also rejected on

25.07.2023 and intervention application no. 12 of 2024 is nothing but

another attempt to derail the CIRP. It is submitted that the applicants claim

to be holders of different units in the project but no documents have been

filed. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the

appeal filed by the corporate debtor on 11.12.2023 has directed that Section

7 application be heard and decided within two months which period has long

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 6

expired but the Corporate Debtor and the different applicants are creating

obstructions in proceeding of Section 7 application by filing different frivolous

applications. It is, however, submitted that hearing in Section 7 application

has already commenced by the Adjudicating Authority and 6th May was date

fixed for completion of the arguments. It is further submitted that the Scheme

which has been filed under Section 230 by the Respondent No.6 is also

defective and the Adjudicating Authority by its order dated 05.04.2024 has

noted various objections in the Scheme and directed M/s. Mist Direct Sales

Pvt. Ltd. to clarify the same. The Scheme is not a valid scheme nor that can

be reason for not proceeding with Section 7 proceeding.

6. Shri Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel appearing for applicant

who has filed Section 230 Scheme submits that the consideration approval of

the scheme shall be beneficial for all homebuyers since under the scheme the

corporate debtor shall construct the project and deliver the homebuyers to all

in real estate project. Admission of application under Section 7 is not the

solution and the Section 7 application filed by the financial creditors need to

await till the Scheme under Section 230 filed by M/s. Mist Avenue Pvt. Ltd. is

considered and disposed. It is submitted that this Court may direct the

Adjudicating Authority not to proceed with Section 7 application and

application under Section 7 can be taken only after disposal of the scheme

petition i.e. CA (AA) No.10/ND/2024. It is submitted that the promoters'

earlier proceeding challenging the maintainability were for the reason that the

promoter had valid objection against proceedings against the corporate

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 7

debtor, hence, that cannot be treated as prejudicial proceeding taken by the

promoter.

7. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

8. From the facts, as noted above, it is clear that Section 7 application was

filed on behalf of 115 financial creditors who are homebuyers of the project

on 12.10.2021. Application was filed against three corporate debtors who are

now Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 in the present appeal. Three corporate debtors

filed separate application objecting the maintainability of Section 7

application. Adjudicating Authority heard the said application and by detailed

order dated 21.10.2022 objections were overruled and it was held that Section

7 application is maintainable. Corporate Debtor filed three appeals

challenging the said order before this Tribunal which appeals were heard and

dismissed by this Tribunal on 17.11.2023. Against the order dated

17.11.2023, appeals were filed by Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 which appeals

were again dismissed by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

11.12.2023. It is useful to notice the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, which is as follows:-

"1 The impugned order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dated 17 November 2023 is admittedly only at the stage where the maintainability of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 was questioned. The application under Section 7 is still awaiting a hearing on merits, though it is common

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 8

ground that nearly two years have gone by in the interregnum. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain these proceedings at the present stage. 2 After the application under Section 7 is heard and disposed of on merits, should it become necessary to do so, the parties would be at liberty to take recourse to all appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. At that stage, should it become so necessary, this Court will enquire into both the merits and maintainability. However, we also clarify that the issue of maintainability shall stand concluded by the impugned order dated 17 November 2023 insofar as the National Company Law Tribunal and NCLAT is concerned.

3 Since the application under Section 7 is pending for over two years, we request the NCLT to take up the application at the earliest possible date and to endeavour an expeditious disposal within two months.

4 Subject to the aforesaid, the Civil Appeals are dismissed.

5 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."

9. After the aforesaid order, applications were filed by several applicants

claiming to be unit holders in the project praying for dismissal of the company

petition which applications were filed by those applicants who have now filed

Intervention Petition No.11 of 2024 also was dismissed by the impugned

order. The application filed by unit holders being IA No. 3875 of 2023 was

rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on 25.07.2023. The Adjudicating

Authority in the impugned order has noticed the facts in paragraph 10 as well

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 9

as the order dated 25.07.2023. It is useful to extract paragraph 10 of the

judgment, which is as follows:-

"10. Then, the same applicants in Ivn. P/11/2024 had filed an application bearing IA 3875/2023 seeking dismissal of the main Company Petition on the ground that the outcome of the present petition shall have a direct bearing on cope interests of the applicants and that the Section 7 Petition shall result in the corporate death of the CD. This Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application vide order dated 25.07.2023. While dismissing the application, the Adjudicating Authority made the following observations: -

The Section 7 application is originally a petition moved by the Unit Buyers. Present application is jointly filed by (1) M/s Disire Retail Pvt. Ltd. holding 69 units in the Festival City Project (2) M/s Ramble Markets Pvt. Ltd. holding 60 units in the Project, (3) M/s Swift Buildwell Put. Ltd. holding 4 units in the Project and (4) M/s Veena Gases and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. holding 9 units in the Project. The Counsel for the Applicants has submitted that the Applicants are necessary and proper party to the present proceedings, as the outcome of the present petition shall have direct bearing on the interest of the Applicants. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicants have submitted that all the Applicants together have invested an amount, in excess of 21.5 crore in the project of the Corporate Debtor. It is clear from the submissions of the Counsel that the Applicants are strategic

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 10

investors in the project, who will ultimately sell the units to interested buyers. The Section 7 Petitioners are allottees of the units. The Applicants in their application has sought for dismissal of the present Section 7 application and also such other and further reliefs. We have also considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. Having considered the stage of the matter and keeping the objects of IBC in view and as the preamble clearly says that timely resolution of CIRP process is one of the prime objects of the Code, the present application by the strategic investors seeking intervention in the matter and the relief of dismissal of Section 7 application cannot be entertained at this stage of the matter. The apprehension of the Petitioner's Counsel that if CIRP is initiated the Applicants interest will be defeated, is neither true nor correct. According to this Adjudicating Authority CIRP is a process whereby the project will be taken up by a Successful Resolution Applicant who will be financially & managerially competent to run the project and will continue to do the work of the Corporate Debtor. Only that the Corporate Debtor will be replaced. The CIRP envisages the organization to work as a going concern. Therefore, the objection/apprehension raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant is not sustainable in the eye of law. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has also raised another argument that after filing of present Section 7 application approximately 10 Petitioners have opted for

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 11

settlement with the Corporate Debtor and walked out of the array of Petitioners. In terms of "Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India" judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the criteria that should be looked into by Adjudicating Authority is whether as on date of filing of the Section 7 petition, the Petitioners are able to master the support of minimum number of Applicants or not. Therefore, the argument advanced by the Counsel for the Applicants is not sustainable. At the outset it is clarified that few of the Petitioners at their own wisdom walked out of the array of the Petitioners, does not create an impression to this Adjudicating Authority that Petitioners are treating this proceeding as recovery proceeding. In fact, at the stage of the matter, the very presence of the Petitioner's counsel and on the other dates of hearing undoubtedly leads to an impression that Petitioners are interested to have their own units through initiation of CIRP. In view of the above, this Adjudicating Authority dismisses the present application, without costs. This order is dictated in the open Court. Dasti Allowed."

10. The above indicates that the filing of IA No. 3875 of 2023 by one set of

unit holder who has now chosen to file Intervention Application No.11 of 2024

has made attempt for dismissing Section 7 application in which they failed.

After 25.07.2023, the corporate debtors have filed again three applications IA

No.4312 of 2023, IA No. 4121 of 2023 and IA No. 4122 of 2023 in the Company

Petition again praying that company petition be dismissed. In the applications

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 12

various grounds including the ground that the Financial Creditor had

committed fraud/forgery was raised which was rejected by the Adjudicating

Authority by order dated 05.01.2024. The Adjudicating Authority has

extracted certain part of the order dated 05.01.2024 in paragraph 11 of the

impugned order. It is useful to extract paragraph 11 of the judgment of the

Adjudicating Authority which is as follows:-

"11. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor (CD) filed three separate applications to dismiss the main Company Petition, alleging that the Financial Debtor had committed fraud/forgery. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed all three applications vide order dated 05.01.2024. This Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the applications held as follows:

10. In light of the above, we find no merit in the present Application filed for dismissal of IB-

682/PB/2021 which a Section 7 Application. The present Application appears to be misleading, filed only for the purpose of delaying the adjudication of IB682/PB/2021. The applicant has failed to appreciate that the intent behind classification of homebuyers as "Financial Creditor" by the legislature was to enable homebuyers to participate in the insolvency resolution process in a constructive and egalitarian manner The Applicant is insisting on dismissal of the Section 7 Petition even after the same has been held maintainable by the Hon'ble NCLAT vide order dated 17.11.2023 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.12.2023 has held that the issue of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 13

maintainability shall stand concluded by the order dated 17.11.2023 insofar as the Adjudicating Authority and NCLAT are concerned. The malafide intention of the Applicant to delay the adjudication of the Section 7 Petition is also evident from the fact that the Applicant never raised this contention of affidavits being forged during the adjudication of maintainability of the Section 7 Petition neither before this Adjudicating Authority nor before the Hon'ble NCLAT.

11. Further, prior to admission of Section 7 Application making attempts to seek dismissal of the application by the applicant is not a practice which in consonance with the provisions of IB Code, 2016 as well as the objects sought to be achieved by the said legislation.

12. From the prayers made at (a) to (g) in the application it transpires that the applicant is attempting to drag on the proceedings and build an approach to have a road-way for forum shopping, therefore, dismissed. the IA/5400/2023 is

13. IA/5400/2023 stands dismissed.

Consequently, IA/4312/2023, IA/4121/2023 & IA/4122/2023 also stand dismissed. The applicant is also directed to refrain from filing such frivolous applications in future so as to avoid imposition of cost."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 14

11. The Adjudicating Authority in the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2024 has

observed that the applicant is attempting to drag on the proceedings.

Adjudicating Authority further directed that the applicant is refrained from

filing such frivolous application in future so as to avoid imposition of cost.

Challenging the order dated 05.01.2024, appeal was filed in this Tribunal

being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 96 of 2024 which was dismissed

by this Tribunal on 29.01.2024. While dismissing the appeal, this Tribunal

affirmed the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the intention of the

appellant is malafide and objections are only raised to delay the adjudication

of Section 7 application. In paragraph 22 of the judgment, following has been

observed:-

"22. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting IAs filed by the Appellant praying for various reliefs as extracted above. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that the intention of the Appellant is malfide and objections are only to delay the adjudication of Section 7 Application. We do not find any error in the impugned order, as no ground is made out to interfere with the order, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs."

12. The order dated 29.01.2024 was further challenged before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.5018 of 2024 which was dismissed

as withdrawn on 29.04.2024.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 15

13. Counsel for the Appellant submits that even though Section 7

application has not yet been admitted, it has every right to intervene and there

is no prohibition in the scheme of the IBC from not entertaining any

intervention application before admission of Section 7 application. Counsel

for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Company

Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1008, 1009 & 1010 of 2021- "Krrish Realtech

Private Limited" decided on 21.12.2021. The case which has been relied by

the appellant was a case where the corporate debtor has filed a Pre-packaged

Insolvency Resolution Process application under Section 54C in which various

objections were filed by the creditors and the Adjudicating Authority vide the

order dated 23.11.2021 granted time to the corporate debtor to file reply

which order was challenged in this Tribunal by filing an appeal by the

corporate debtor. In the aforesaid appeal, this Tribunal considering the fact

of the case had made following observations in paragraphs 15 and 21, which

are as follows:-

"15. The legislative intent which is clear by Section 424 (1) is that the Tribunal while disposing of any proceeding before it shall not be bound by procedure laid down by Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act or Code 2016 and any of the Rules made thereunder. Further, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have power to regulate their own procedure. The statutory scheme delineated by Chapter III-A of 'I&B Code' as well as the Regulations, 2021 as observed above does not indicate any prohibition on the Adjudicating

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 16

Authority to hear any objector or intervener before admitting an Application of pre-packaged insolvency resolution process. When there is no prohibition in hearing an objector or interveners by the Adjudicating Authority, the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority giving time to the objectors to file objection cannot be said to be in breach of any statutory provisions. We may hasten to add that hearing of objectors or interveners in each case where pre-packaged insolvency resolution process application has been filed is not a matter of course and has to be limited to exceptional cases. We are cautious that proceeding under the 'I&B Code' are time bound procedure where unnecessary delay has to be avoided by the Adjudicating Authority and giving time to objections which are meritless and giving time to objectors and interveners has to be exercised on sound discretion on valid grounds.

xxx xxx xxx

21. We, thus, are of the view that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in giving opportunity to the objectors to file their objections. The Appellant has also been given opportunity to file his rejoinder and reply to the objections, hence he cannot claim that any prejudice is cause to him only because objectors have been given time to file objection. The objectors who have appeared before the Adjudicating Authority have huge stakes since they are all homebuyers/ allottees and have paid substantial amount to the Appellant running in lakhs and crores. No exception can be taken to their anxiety to ensure that pre-packaged insolvency resolution process is resorted in accordance with the procedure

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 17

prescribed in law. They have come up before the Court only to protect their claims and point out the Court about the non-compliance of the statutory provisions and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider the objections and take decision on merit. Before we close, we reiterate our observations that any observations made by us in this judgment are only for the purpose of considering as to whether Adjudicating Authority has committed any error in granting time to the intervenors/ objectors to file objection. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of any of the objectors and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider and ultimately take a decision as to whether Application under Section 54C deserves to be admitted or rejected."

14. This Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority

in the above case granting time to the Corporate Debtor/applicant to file reply

to the objections filed by the various stakeholders. Relying on the said

judgment, it is contended that the applicant who has filed intervention

petition are also interested in the proceeding and should be allowed to

intervene. Judgment of this Tribunal dated 21.12.2021 in "Krrish Realtech

Private Limited" was on its own facts. The objectors appeared and objected

the application that application has been filed contrary to the statutory

provisions and objectors' objection be heard since the application has been

malafidely and fraudulently filed to defeat the rights of the homebuyers who

are financial creditors.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 18

15. In the facts of the above case, this Tribunal held that the order of the

Adjudicating Authority granting time to the corporate debtor to file reply to

the objection cannot be faulted. The facts of the present case depict the

entirely different story. As noted above, in Section 7 application which has

been filed by 115 homebuyers, several attempts have been made by the

corporate debtor and other applicants to get the petition dismissed and the

order passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting such objection have

been upheld upto the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court on

11.12.2023 while dismissing the appeals challenging the order of this

Tribunal noticed the fact that Section 7 application is pending for the last two

years and requested the NCLT to take up the application at the earliest

possible date and to endeavour an expeditious disposal within two months.

Time allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.12.2023 has long expired

and by one or other objections on application, proceedings are sought to be

thwarted. Noticing all earlier proceedings Adjudicating Authority rejected

intervention petition no. 12 of 2024 in which we do not find any fault and the

judgment of this Tribunal in "Krrish Realtech Private Limited" does not

help the Appellant in the facts of the present case.

16. The Company Petition which has been filed in the year 2024 by

Respondent No.6- M/s. Mist Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd., Counsel for the

Respondent No.2 has produced the order dated 05.04.2024 of the

Adjudicating Authority where petitioners have been asked to clarify various

aspects. The petition under Section 230 for scheme by the corporate debtor

is independent proceeding but filing of the said petition cannot be a ground

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024 19

to not permit the proceeding under Section 7 which are being halted and

obstructed by one or other attempts by corporate debtor and other applicants

as noted above. It is further noticed that the case of the corporate debtor as

noticed from the record, it is clear that the RERA registration of the project

has already cancelled and there is a dispute of title as claimed by the

corporate debtor regarding the land. We, thus, do not find any substance in

the submission of the counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 to accepts the

submission that Section 7 application be further not proceeded with till

application under Section 230 of the Companies Act filed by Respondent No.6

be finalised.

17. From sequence of the events as noted above and especially the order of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.12.2023, it is clear that Section 7

application has to be proceeded and decided in accordance with law and in

the facts of the present case, Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error

in rejecting the Intervention Petition No.12 of 2024. We, thus, do not find any

error in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) New Delhi Anjali

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 899 of 2024