Ram Kishor Arora vs Union Bank Of India & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Ram Kishor Arora Suspended Director of ...Appellants Supertech Ltd. Versus Union Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta Sr. Counsel with Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha and Ms. Alina Merin Mathew, Advocates for Applicant. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Sr. Counsel with Mr. Siddharth Bhatli, Ms. Lashita Dhingra, Ms. Khyati Jain, Ms. Heena Kochar and Mr. Bhupender Premi, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Gudipati G. Kashyap, Mr. Ronvijay Gohain and Mr. Anam Ahmad, Advocates for NBCC. Mr. Sahil Sethi, Mr. Samriddh Bindal, Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocates for Applicant in IA- 4306 Of 2023 And R3 in IA- 706/2025. Mr. Sanjiv Sen Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sameer Jain, Mr. Suvigya Awasthi, Mr. Deepesh Raj, Mr. Prahalad, Ms. Anjali and Mr. Pragyan Mishra, Advocates for Noida.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.03.2025: I.A. No. 4306 of 2023

This application has been filed by the Cape Town Association of

Apartment Owners other IA No.706 of 2025 and IA No. 1169/2025 has been

filed by YG Estates Facilities Management Private Limited. We have heard

Shri Krishnendu Dutta Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the YG Estates Facilities Management Private Limited, Ld. Counsel for the IRP as well as Ld. Counsel

appearing for the Cape Town Association of Apartments Owners. While

hearing CA (AT) (Ins) No. 406/2022 filed by the Ram Kishore Arora

Suspended Director of the Supertech Limited. This Tribunal had to consider

various applications and on 08.07.2024 in IA No. 4306/2023 filed by the

Cape Town Association of Apartment Owners the following directions were

issued:-

"IA No. 4306 of 2023

This application filed by Capetown Association of Apartment Owners. The learned counsel for the applicant submits with regard to maintenance of the units there is issue since the maintenance is being carried out by the entity who was engaged by the promoters and IRP has not taken its responsibility of either changing the agency of maintenance or appointing some new agency or handing over to Association of Apartment Owners.

Learned counsel for the IRP seeks time to obtain instructions. As prayed, two weeks' time are allowed to obtain instructions.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that with regard to several units there are OC already issued by Noida Authority however, the sub-lease deed are not been executed. IRP submits that Noida Authority has also to be heard before any directions are issued for execution of lease deed.

Let Noida Authority be impleaded as one of the respondent in L.A. No. 4306 of 2023.

Issue notice to the Noida Authority, learned counsel for the appellant may also serve the copy of the application and order to the Noida Authority personally within the period of one week from today.

2 of 10 I.A. No. 4306 of 2023 & 6568 of 2024 & 706, 1169, 1175, 1312 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 406 of 2022 List this application on the next date along with other applications.

Noida Authority may also give their response with regard to claim of the appellant with regard to water and electricity connection/ water electricity charges.

List the application after three weeks."

On the subsequent date when the matter again came for consideration

order was passed by this Tribunal on 19.09.2024 in IA No. 4306 of 2024 this

Tribunal made following observations with respect to I.A. No.4306 of 2023:-

"10. Now coming to the Capetown maintenance IA No. 4306 of 2023 it is submitted that there is a registered association of Captetown maintenance but the earlier agency which was appointed by the promoters is still maintaining there are several lapses in the maintenance, it has been noted in the earlier orders that IRP has already issued a show cause notice to the earlier maintenance agency.

11. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Capetown maintenance submits that the registered association of homebuyers is ready to take responsibility of the maintenance and IRP may get inventory prepared of inspection of all deficiencies and handover. IRP may consider handing over the maintenance to the registered association and appropriate steps taken before the next date."

The IRP who was part of the proceedings and was heard on above date,

when the matter came for consideration again before this Tribunal on

21.10.2024 and made submissions with regard to the Maintenance Agency

following was noticed in paragraph 17 of the order:-

"17. With regard to paragraph 10 and 11 of the order dated 19.09.2024 the Ld. Counsel for the IRP submits that meeting was convened on 03.10.2024 with the registered association of

3 of 10 I.A. No. 4306 of 2023 & 6568 of 2024 & 706, 1169, 1175, 1312 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 406 of 2022 Captetown maintenance but there was some issue with regard to inventory and handing over possession by the earlier agency. Ld. Counsel for the registered association submits that hand over has to be in favour of the office-bearers of the registered association as functioning as on date. Let necessary handover be done and the earlier agency may also co-operate with the handing over. IRP may take necessary action with this regard and complete the process within two weeks."

The Ld. Counsel for the IRP submits that after the order of 08.07.2024

passed by this Tribunal a show cause notice was issued on 13.07.2024 to the

YG Estates, "subject" of the show cause notice states as follows:-

"Sub: Show Cause Notice regarding Common Area Maintenance (CAM) service provider YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt.

Ltd. vide Agency Appointment Agreement dated September 15, 2019."

The Ld. Counsel for the IRP referring to the show cause notice dated

13.07.2024 refers to para- v, vi, vii which are as follows:-

"v. Further, on July 8, 2024 the allottees of Project Captown agitated the objections before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal regarding the maintenance services being provided by you and directions have been passed upon the undersigned. A copy of the said order is attached herewith for your perusal.

vi. The IRP, on behalf of the stakeholder concerned/allottees, is sending this instant notice to resolve the issues raised by the allottees effectively. Therefore, you are hereby required to respond in writing to the objections/complaints raised by the resident allottees of Project Capetown, Project Romano, Project Eco Citi and Project Eco Villege-1. Additionally, please provide the audit reports, amount spent on augmenting infrastructure in Non-EV II Projects (as verbally communicated by you on various occasions), and any other information that you may deem fit.

4 of 10 I.A. No. 4306 of 2023 & 6568 of 2024 & 706, 1169, 1175, 1312 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 406 of 2022 vii. Accordingly, you are also hereby required to show cause within ten (10) business days from the date of this notice, as to why Agency Agreement should not be terminated immediately or otherwise cancelled, failing which the undersigned reserves the right to terminate the Agency Agreement, without any further course of action/notice in this regard."

2. Ld. Counsel for the YG Estates submits that the reply to the show

cause notice was sent on 22.07.2024. Subsequent to the aforesaid, a meeting

took place on 03.10.2024 between the YG Estates, IRP, the Home Buyers and

Office bearers of the Association where the decision was taken with regard to

smooth handover of the maintenance of the towers in question. It is the case

of both the parties that on 13.10.2024 the YG Estates has handed over the

maintenance to the Association of the Apartment Owners. It is submitted by

the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Apartment Owners that Apartment Owners

are maintaining the facilities from 13.10.2024.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Apartment Owners have also referred to the

provisions of Uttar Pradesh Apartment Promotion of Construction Ownership

And Maintenance Act, 2010 Section 4(7)(8), 14(1), (2)&(5). It is submitted by

the Apartment Owners that it is the statutory obligation that after the

association is formed the maintenance has to be handed over.

4. The present is the case where corporate debtor by an agreement dated

15.09.2019 has nominated the YG Estate Agency for the project and towers

and it was in pursuance of the said nomination by the corporate debtor at the

time when insolvency had not even commenced, the YG Estates has providing

5 of 10 I.A. No. 4306 of 2023 & 6568 of 2024 & 706, 1169, 1175, 1312 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 406 of 2022 the maintenance. After the orders were passed by this Tribunal, in IA No. 706

of 2025 where the YG Estates have made the following prayers:-

"That the reliefs sought out by the Applicants are as follows:-

a) Pass appropriate direction to the IRP or NBCC as the case may to protect the interests of the Applicant and mandatorily pay the amount due to the applicant for services provided under the facilities management agreement with Supertech Ltd.

b) Direct NBCC to take into account the investment made, and outstanding amount due payable to the Applicant and make provisions for the same in its plan as a mandatory payment due.

c) Implead the Applicant as party Respondent to Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 406 of 2022 being a necessary and proper party and allow the Applicant to file a detailed affidavit bringing forth certain additional facts and submissions;

d) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

Another application which has been filed by the YG Estates being the IA

No. 1169 of 2025 where the following prayers have been made

"Relief Sought:

(a) Allow the present application and recall the orders dated 19.09.2024 and 21.10.2024 passed in I.A. No. 4306 of 2023;

(b) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the YG Estates have fairly submitted that in

view of the fact that maintenance has already been handed over on

13.10.2024 to the Apartment Owners, the YG Estates is not praying for

6 of 10 I.A. No. 4306 of 2023 & 6568 of 2024 & 706, 1169, 1175, 1312 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 406 of 2022 reversal of the situation as on date. It is however submitted by the counsel for

the appellant that YG Estates has entered into individual contract with the

homebuyers in several independent agreements from 2020-23. The counsel

for the Apartment Owners submits that the said agreement is not entered

with all the Apartment Owners. Be as it may, one of the copy of the

maintenance agreement dated 12.12.2023 with one of the homebuyer has

been brought on record by the YG Estates along with the convenience

compilation.

6. Ld. Counsel for the YG Estates submits that in so far as the fact that

maintenance has now been handed over YG Estates does not want reversal of

the situation, let the maintenance be continued, with regard to maintenance

no relief is now sought. However, there are various claims of the YG Estate

against the individual homebuyers which required reconciliation and

determination. Ld. Counsel for the Apartment owners submits that there has

been advance payment to the YG Estates and infact certain dues are owed by

the YG Estates to the homebuyers.

7. The present is the case where the YG Estates was nominated the

Maintenance Agency by the Supertech, the corporate debtor on 15.09.2019 in

the present case CIRP against the corporate debtor had commenced on

25.03.2022.

8. Under the Builder-Buyers Agreement between the allottees and the

corporate debtor, the corporate debtor was to maintain the common area and

other facilities of the towers through itself or by its nominee and the allottees

7 of 10 I.A. No. 4306 of 2023 & 6568 of 2024 & 706, 1169, 1175, 1312 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 406 of 2022 were required to make certain payments with regard to maintenance to the

corporate debtor or its nominee. The YG Estates also claim certain rights with

regard to subsequent contract with the individual homebuyers. We are of the

view that in the IA No. 706/2025 appellant has made payment of certain

claims from with regard to service provided under the facilities management

agreement. There are issues between the YG Estates and Apartment Owners

with regard to liabilities of each other. We are of the view that in the present

applications or appeal it is not for this Tribunal to enter into said issues and

record any findings with regard to claims of each other. Both the parties are

at liberty, YG Estates as well as the Association of the Homebuyers to bring

into notice of the IRP the claims of each other and it is for the IRP to take a

call, or appoint any auditor for considering the claims and it is for the IRP to

take a call and take a decision and parties have to work out their remedies

accordingly and such issues cannot be gone into and decided in this

application.

9. Now coming to the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant

that in so far as orders passed by this Tribunal as noted above on 19.09.2024

and 24.10.2024 may not be treated to prejudicial interest of the appellant.

The above orders were passed while considering the applications filed by

Apartment Owners and IRP, who was in charge of the CIRP by virtue of being

appointed in the CIRP and was entitled to look into the all projects and take

appropriate action. After considering the submissions of RP necessary

directions were passed which handover having already taken place, we are of

8 of 10 I.A. No. 4306 of 2023 & 6568 of 2024 & 706, 1169, 1175, 1312 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 406 of 2022 the view that in so far as the orders passed on 19.09.2024 and 21.10.2024

the said orders cannot be read as an order which may be treated to be against

the interest of the YG Estates.

10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also by an application bearing no.

1169 of 2025 prayed for recall of aforesaid order passed by this Tribunal on

19.09.2024 and 21.10.2024. In view of the facts as stated above specially the

submission of the counsel for the YG Estates that hand over have taken place

on 13.10.2024 and they do not pray for reversal of the Maintenance Agency

as on date we see no reason to recall of our order dated 19.09.2024 and

21.10.2024. We further make it clear that orders dated 19.09.2024 and

21.10.2024 have passed on the facts which was brought in the notice of the

court and was passed in facts of the project in question and may have no

bearing with regard to similar issues raised in other projects. Ld. Counsel

appearing for the applicant in IA- 4306 of 2023 submits that there are certain

prayers in the application with regard to Noida Authorities. He submits that

the said applications be kept pending. In the facts of the present case we are

of the view that interest of justice be served in giving liberty to the appellant

to file a fresh application with regard to reliefs against the Noida. In view of

the orders passed by the Tribunal noted above we permit the applicant to file

fresh application with regard to other reliefs claimed in the application hence

the application no. 4306/2023 is also disposed of. With the aforesaid order,

all applications are disposed of.

9 of 10 I.A. No. 4306 of 2023 & 6568 of 2024 & 706, 1169, 1175, 1312 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 406 of 2022

11. In support of the recall application it is submitted that YG Estate was

not the party to the application hence no direction could have been issued for

YG Estates.

12. In view of the fact that we have already noticed that the YG Estate itself

has submitted that it does not pray for reversal of the handover which was

done on 13.10.2024 we see no reason to recall the order. All the applications

are disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

10 of 10 I.A. No. 4306 of 2023 & 6568 of 2024 & 706, 1169, 1175, 1312 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 406 of 2022