TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor in CIRP are being given any such preferential treatment. In the facts of the matter, the prayers of the Appellant in I.A. 2468 of 2020 could not be granted. It would not be in consonance with the scheme of IBC. Under the scheme of IBC, the allottee can be dealt with under Resolution Plan or if the Corporate Debtor goes into Liquidation, the allottees would get treatment as per provisions but the same would have to be similar to all. Even if the veil is lifted, what appears is that one of the directors of the holding company gave some preferential benefit to the Appellant. However, when CIRP has been initiated, the Corporate Debtor with whom no prior contractual arrangement is proved, cannot be forced to continue with the same treatment. Appeal disposed off. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 652 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2021 - [Justice A.I.S. Cheema] The Officiating Chairperson And [Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee and Ms. Saloni Jain, Ms. Vatsala Bhatta, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanyam Saxena, RP.Mr. Mohit Prasad, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Rishi K Kapoor and Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocates for R-3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2479/2020 for further hearing ON 06.08.2020. For IA/2468/2020 being filed stating that the Corporate Debtor executed a rent agreement in favour of the Applicant, therefore to restrain the corporate debtor from evicting the Applicant from the respective premises, the Resolution Professional counsel has categorically stated that rent agreement discloses that it was entered in between the Applicant and one person namely Ms. Aarti Saraf but not in between the Corporate Debtor and the Applicant, therefore this application shall be dismissed in limine. For this Bench having noticed that Corporate Debtor has nothing to do with this issue, and this Applicant is neither the Creditor nor the Debtor to the Corporate Debtor, this IA/2468/2020 is hereby dismissed as misconceived. 5. The Appellant claims that on 23rd March, 2020 she has filed her claim as Form C (Annexure A-5, Page 82) in the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and that she is allottee of the Corporate Debtor. 6. The Appeal claims and it is argued for the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority wrongly held that the Corporate Debtor has nothing to do with the rent agreement concerned and thus Orders protecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month and the same will be paid by the tenant to the Landlady/First party by cheque/NEFT on or before 7th day of each English calendar month in advance. Tenant/Second party has already paid ₹ 112000/- (Rupees One Lac Twelve Thousand only) as advance rent to the Landlord/first party vide cheque no. 520841 dated 22.11.2018 drawn on Yes Bank, Express Trade Tower 2, Sector-132, Noida Branch. Tenant/Second party has confirmed that the subsequent payment shall also be made by Shri Vidur Bharadwaj. 2. The maintenance charge will be paid by the tenant/second party. 3. That the security amount of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) has been paid by the Tenant/second party without any interest there on to the Landlady/first party, vide cheque no. 520841 dated 22.11.2018 drawn on Yes Bank, Express Trade Tower, 2, Sector 132, Noida Branch. The same shall be returned by the landlord/first party to the tenant/second party after adjustment of outstanding dues of any towards the said premises under his/her tenancy and towards damage to any fittings/fixtures at the end of tenure of 24 months. 4. That the said cheque no. 520841 dated 22.11.2018 drawn on Yes Bank, pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already paid INR. 112000 (Rupees one lacs twelve thousand only) as advance rent to the Landlord/First party vide cheque No. 520841 dated 22.11.2018 drawn on Yes Bank, Express Trade Tower 2, Sector 132, Noida Branch. Tenant/Second Party has confirmed that the subsequent payment shall also be made by Shri. Vidur Bhardwaj . That the aforementioned Clause specifically states that the Tenant has made the payment of advance rent to the landlord which is the Appellant herself tantamount different false statement submitted by the Appellant in the present Appeal. In fact, the Respondent No. 3 is not even party of the said agreement nor having the any knowledge of execution of the said agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2, whatsoever. Therefore, no liability could be arise from the said agreement against the Respondent No. 3 which is not even party to the agreement and doctrine of privity of contract needs to apply herein. Hence, no relief of remedy is available to the Appellant against the Respondent No. 3, whatsoever, by virtue of doctrine of privity of contract. Moreover, the said agreement is an un-registered Rent agreement of period more than 11 months tantamount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish Kumar Gupta Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 1 with regard to lifting the corporate veil. Judgment in the matter of Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. dealt with provisions under Section 29A of IBC. Hon ble Supreme Court of India was considering provisions of Section 29-A of IBC which relates to persons not eligible to be Resolution Applicant. In that context, the Hon ble Supreme Court of India was considering expressions management control acting in concert etc. and observed in Paragraph 37 as under: 37. It is thus clear that, where a statute itself lifts the corporate veil, or where protection of public interest is of paramount importance, or where a company has been formed to evade obligations imposed by the law, the court will disregard the corporate veil. Further, this principle is applied even to group companies, so that one is able to look at the economic entity of the group as a whole Having said so, now it is necessary to consider the facts of the present matter. 12. The Appellant is herself stating that Mr. Vidur Bhardwaj is director of the holding company Three C Infra Pvt. Ltd. . The Corporate Debtor is M/s. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. Appellant is allotte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
