TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue from the Corporate Debtor, this Petition cannot be admitted. Petition rejected. - CP 3741 (IB)/MB/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2019 - Mr. V. P. Singh, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Ravikumar Duraisamy, Member (Technical) For The Petitioner : Adv. Heena Vichare Adv. Disha R. Shah For The Respondent : Adv.Akshay Pare ORDER Per V.P. Singh, Member (Judicial) 1. This is a petition being CP 3741/2018 filed by Kanchan Rajmal Jain, Financial Creditor or Petitioner, under section 7 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( I B Code ) against Lodha Crown Buildmart Private Limited, Corporate Debtor, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement to Sell dated 8.3.2016 was entered into whereby the Petitioner was allotted a flat on the 36th floor. The fit out date in the third Agreement to Sell was postponed to 31.12.2016. It is alleged that the postponement of the fitout date from 31.12.2015 to 31.12.2016 was done without any prior information or intimation to the Petitioner. 5. The Petitioner in its letter dated 24.7.2017 claimed ₹24,50,000/- as compensation for the delay and default from the Corporate Debtor. The Petitioner further stated in the letter that she is ready to pay ₹9,21,655/- out of the total demand by the Corporate Debtor of ₹33,71,655/- after deduction of ₹24,50,000/-. In reply to this letter, the Respondent sent an ema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a well-given grace period of 18 months from the fitout date 31.12.2016. 8. The Petitioner sent a legal notice dated 9.7.2018 alleging that she has suffered several injuries and damages due to unreasonable delay on the part of the Respondent and thereby claiming an amount of ₹56,00,000/- as compensation and interest thereon. The Respondent replied to this legal notice on 27.7.2018 denying the claim of the Petitioner on several grounds, including there being no provision in the Agreement to Sell for any compensation in the event of a delay. 9. The Respondent has filed an Affidavit in reply on 24.1.2019 opposing the admission of the Petition under Section 7 of the I B Code on the ground that there is no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties and perused the records. 13. The claim in the present Petition is compensation, to an allottee of flat, for the delay in offering possession of its flat by the Respondent. It is pertinent to note that this compensation has not been adjudicated by any competent authority, neither is it provided for in the impugned Agreement to Sell. The Petitioner has calculated the compensation amount on its whims and fancies without showing any legal or contractual provision for the same. The compensation amount cannot be said to be liquidated or a crystalized amount under any provision, whether legal or contractual. 14. The contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent has changed the fitout possession date and gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovery proceeding and the Adjudicating Authority has to strictly adhere to the rules of procedure, and the timelines set out in the I B Code. The Adjudicating Authority should be alive to the object sought to be achieved by the I B Code and ensure that all efforts to derail the process are frustrated. 16. This Adjudicating Authority does not have the requisite power to determine the disputed question of fact that could establish the existence of the debt in this case. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances and as per the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs ICICI Bank and Ors., AIR2017SC 4084, as the Petitioner could not prove the existence of debt due from the Corporate Debtor, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
