Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1178 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCHMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors/Homebuyers - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- In order to attract the provisions of IBC, a homebuyer must qualify as an ‘Allotee’ under the Section 2 (d) of the RERA Act. As the “Wing E” itself was not complete and registered, thus, the provision of RERA Act shall not apply to the Petitioner in this case as was held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s in MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD.) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, SANJAY PHULWARIA, PAROMITA PHULWARIA [2021 (3) TMI 1266 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that it is apparent that the Act cannot have any retrospective operation and will only apply to those projects which have been completed and registered either prior to commencement of the Act or in the case of ongoing projects, the project or a phase thereof have been completed and received the occupancy certificate/part occupancy certificate within the window of three months from the date of commencement of Section (3) of the Act. The petitioner has failed to provide substantial proof of his intent to take possession of the flat. Merely, showing receipts of the transaction amount could not be considered as a surety that the person shall necessarily take possession of the Flat/Apartment, even if that person is considered as an allotee. The relief as sought by the Petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are to be presented in front of appropriate Authority as it falls out of the scope of this court - Petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Akshar Shanti Realtors Private Limited, the Respondent, is Rejected.
|