Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1291 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAICIRP - Bona fide Home Buyers’ of the Villa - purchase by way of Agreement of Sale’ and ‘Construction Agreement’, dated 12.07.2011, executed by ‘M/s. Samruddhi Realty Limited’ / ‘Corporate Debtor’, after having paid the ‘whole Sale Consideration’, and after securing ‘Possession - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the instant case on hand, it is crystalline clear that ‘No Security Interest’, is created to and in favour of the ‘Appellants / Petitioners’, considering the fact that admittedly, ‘no Registered Sale Deed’, was ‘executed’, by the ‘Appellants / Petitioners’ and the ‘Corporate Debtor’. It cannot be disputed that the ‘Appellants / Petitioners’, are in ‘Possession of the Property’, in a permissive manner, because of the latent and patent fact that the ‘Corporate Debtor’, gave the key of the Villa to the ‘Appellants / Petitioners’, so as to enable them to start the ‘Interior Work’, and that the ‘Appellants / Petitioners’, had incurred an ‘Expenditure’ of Rs.4,63,000/-, in this regard - It cannot be gainsaid that only the ‘Assets’, that are charged as ‘Security Interest(s)’, will fall outside the ambit of ‘Liquidation Proceedings’. Furthermore, this ‘Tribunal’, bears in mind that the ‘Ownership of the Subject Property’, rests with the ‘Corporate Debtor’. Also, it cannot be brushed aside the ‘Appellants / Petitioners’, had in ‘Form – G’, preferred a Claim of Rs.6,65,191/- for the ‘remaining work’, to be completed in the ‘Subject Property’. It cannot be gainsaid that in respect of a ‘Sale of an Immovable Property’, which is in ‘Value of more than Rs.100/-‘, it is to be ‘compulsorily Registered’, as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, in the considered opinion of this ‘Tribunal’. One cannot remain in oblivion of the primordial fact that the term ‘Conveys’ in ‘Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882’, only meant for conveying ‘Ownership’, which visualises a ‘Completion’, only in respect of an ‘Execution’ and ‘Registration’ of the valid ‘Deed of Conveyance’. This ‘Tribunal’, keeping in mind of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a careful consideration of respective contentions, advanced on either side, without ‘haziness’, comes to a resultant conclusion, that ‘to and in favour’ of the ‘Appellants / Petitioners’, ‘No Security Interest’, is created, especially, the admitted fact being, ‘no Registered Sale Deed’, was ‘executed’, and as such, ‘no relief(s)’, can be granted to the ‘Appellants / Petitioners’. Appeal dismissed.
|