| Headnote |
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: s.7 – Respondent no. 4-corporate debtor came out with a housing project – However, could not complete the project even after a period of eight years – Respondent nos.1 to 3 (original applicants) who were the home buyers preferred s.7 application before NCLT seeking initiation of CIRP against Corporate Debtor – Original applicants sought refund of an amount of Rs.6,93,02,755/- due to an inordinate delay in completion of project and failure to handover possession within the stipulated time – The said application was filed on 06.12.2018, i.e., prior to the amendment to s.7 of the IBC, which now permits 100 or 10% of the home buyers/allottees to apply under s.7 of the IBC – NCLT admitted s.7 application and appointed the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and declared a moratorium – Appellant challenged the order of admission of s.7 application before the NCLAT – During the hearing before the NCLAT, the appellant tried to settle the matter with the original applicants, however, the settlement did not go through – By impugned order, NCLAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the admission order and directed commencement of CIRP – The IRP issued the public announcement on 10.11.2020 and constituted the Committee of Creditors on 23.11.2020 – In the meantime, instant appeal filed – This Court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation and implementation of impugned order, subject to appellant depositing the amount of Rs.2,75,55,186/- with interest in the Registry of this Court – Appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 3,36,02,000/- with the Registry – Three home buyers preferred IA No. 105732 of 2021 for impleadment – When the present appeal was taken up for further hearing on 04.02.2022, it was reported that the original applicants as well as 79 other home buyers settled the dispute with the Corporate Debtor whereby it was agreed that the corporate debtor shall complete the entire project and hand over the possession to the home buyers (who want the possession), within a period of one year – It was also submitted on behalf of the original applicants that they have also settled the dispute with the corporate debtor and they had agreed to refund the amount of Rs.3,36,02,000/- with applicable/accrued interest to the original applicants – Therefore, it was requested to record the settlement and permit original applicants to withdraw CIRP proceedings pending before the NCLT – Pursuant to order dated 4.2.2022, the original applicants preferred IA No. 18679 of 2022 under Art.142 of the Constitution of India r/ w rr.11 and 12 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, praying for permitting original applicants to withdraw CIRP proceedings on their being paid a sum of Rs.3,36,02,000/- along with applicable interest, out of the amount deposited by the appellant in the Registry of this Court and also dismiss all matters pending between the appellant and original applicants and close the CIRP proceedings – Held: In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where out of 128 home buyers, 82 home buyers will get the possession within a period of one year, as undertaken by the appellant and corporate debtor, coupled with the fact that original applicants have also settled the dispute with the appellant/corporate debtor, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Art.142 of the Constitution of India r/w r.11 of the NCLT rules, 2016 and to permit the original applicants to withdraw the CIRP proceedings – The same shall be in the larger interest of the home buyers who are waiting for the possession since more than eight years – Even the object and purpose of the IBC is not to kill the company and stop/ stall the project, but to ensure that the business of the company runs as a going concern. |
