9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi, dismissing Company Appeal (AT) (INS.) No. 1248 of 2019 filed by the Appellant. 2. On or about 30.05.2013, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed by and between the Appellant, hereinafter referred to as the Financial Creditor, and the Respondent, hereinafter referred to as the Corporate Debtor, whereby the Financial Creditor agreed to grant the Corporate Debtor loan of Rs. 50,00,000 with interest @ 2% per month. 3. To secure the aforesaid loan, the Corporate Debtor agreed to mortgage 2 flats at the "Kumar Imperial Greens" at Greater Noida to the Financial Creditor. 4. It is not necessary to delve into details of the subsequent agreements executed by and between the Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditor or to the dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t namely K-708, under clause 3 (a) is fixed as Rs. 49,59,375/-. However, it is important to note from clause 5(ii) the following words which are material for the purpose of the case in hand and which read as follows. "However, all the payments/demands have been received by the builder within the scheduled time" 8. The above wordings in clause 5(ii) clearly evidences that the parties have virtually agreed to appropriate the loan amount granted earlier as the consideration for the flat purchase as otherwise the wordings as extracted above is an anomaly. It is pertinent to note that the execution of the agreement dated 1 October 2016 is not denied by the parties. Hence, considering the said agreement to be the fresh bargain as entered into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that on the date of filing of petition as a (Home Buyer) no default stands established, more so, when the possession also seems to be offered before the completion of the date of possession as given in the agreement namely 1.4.18. 15. In the circumstances this petition had been filed premature and the Tribunal dismiss it on the said count." 9. In appeal, the NCLAT found that the admitted document executed between the parties which was the latest in point of time, was the agreement dated 1st October 2016. Considering the contents of the said agreement, the NCLAT found no reason to disagree with the adjudicating authority. The records showed that the Corporate Debtor had in terms of the said agreement dated 1st October 2016, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
