TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/S SNEHA TRADERS, M/S SHAMRAO BALIRAM, MR. NITIN MURLIDHAR SUGANCHAND AGRAWAL, MR. LALCHAND MALOO, MS. PRAKRITI NIGAM VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR V. IYER, DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED, M/S. MURALI INDUSTRIES LIMITED [ 2020 (4) TMI 385 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI ], wherein it was held that the Resolution Applicant cannot be suddenly faced with undecided claims after the Plan submitted by him has been accepted. There are force in the contention of the Respondent that the resolution professional has sought for the clarifications/ documents with regard to the claim. The Applicant sat on their unsubstantiated claim for various months, without furnishing the proof substantiating her claim, owing to which their claim could not be verified. In the absence of documents supporting the claim of the Applicant, the RP cannot process and accept the claim of the Applicant - If the claim of said home buyers who had taken loans from applicant is already admitted then same amount of claim cannot be again admitted by RP which will amount to duplication. The present application fails and is rejected. - IA No.456/2019 IN CP (IB) NO. 1059/ND12018 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2021 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the same, the Corporate Debtor had approached the Applicant if it could provide the financial assistance to retail home buyers and assured the Applicant to execute the tripartite agreement including issuance of permission to mortgage in order to protect the interest of the Applicant amongst applicant, corporate debtor and home buyers/allotee. Some of the home buyers / allottees, who have availed housing loan facilities from the Applicant, have booked the residential flats in the aforesaid project. The said allottees have availed housing loan amounting to Rs. 30,58,22,625/- from the Applicant and the same was disbursed to the corporate debtor at the request of the respective allottees, out of which the amount of Rs.28,38,20,629/- was the total outstanding dues as on December 10, 2018. 5. The relationship of the Applicant with the Corporate Debtor is based on four sub-structure: i. The Corporate Debtor has not performed his duty to complete the aforesaid project and has not handed over the possession of the property (flats) within the stipulated period of time and even till today, as agreed in terms of the Builder Buyer Agreement ii. Indemnification - In terms of the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein it was reiterated that the RP has not received any claim as submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant thereafter sent an email wherein it was communicated to the RP that the Applicant has already submitted its claim. 8. The Applicant had filed 24 applications before the Hon ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi ( DRT ) for recovery of its outstanding amount to be paid by the respective borrowers / home buyers and / or the Corporate Debtor on behalf of such home buyers. Out of the aforesaid 24 applications, the Hon ble DRT has already issued recovery certificates against the Corporate Debtor. It is evident that such recovery certificates against the Corporate Debtor authenticates the claim of the Applicant against the home buyers and/or Corporate Debtor as per the tripartite arrangement between the Applicant, respective home buyers and the Corporate Debtor. 9. The Respondent, Resolution Professional of M/s Subhkamana Buildtech Private Limited has filed a reply to the present application and has controverted the averments made in the application. It has been asserted that the RP never received the claim from the Applicant. The Applicant sat over their rights during the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercised their rights arising out of the agreements and if at all it was taken, the same was never brought to the attention of the RP. That it is clarified that the mere enforceable rights provided under an agreement is not enough and the claimant are is required to act upon the rights and establish the claim, if any based on the documents so required for RP to decide the claim. That it is also highlighted that to the contrary the Applicant never submitted their claim with supporting documents. 13. It is submitted that the applicant submitted its claim in December, 2018 which is not admitted by RP for want of sufficient document proof and on 17.10.2019 the resolution plan was approved by the CoC with 87.57% voting share. Consequently, the Application for approval of Resolution Plan was filed by the Resolution Professional before this Hon ble Tribunal, which is still pending for approval before this Hon ble Tribunal. It is to be noted that no stay in the present CA was granted by this Hon ble Tribunal, and it is clear that once the plan has been approved, no undecided claim may be agitated. 14. We are supported from the ratio delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in its deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar vs Vijay Kumar V. Iyer and Anr. [CA(AT)(Ins) No. 871- 872/2019), decided on 24.01.2020, wherein it was held that the Resolution Applicant cannot be suddenly faced with undecided claims after the Plan submitted by him has been accepted. 18. So far as the application is concerned, we have perused the relevant documents and submissions made by the counsels and find force in the contention of the Respondent that the resolution professional has sought for the clarifications/ documents with regard to the claim. The Applicant sat on their unsubstantiated claim for various months, without furnishing the proof substantiating her claim, owing to which their claim could not be verified. In the absence of documents supporting the claim of the Applicant, the RP cannot process and accept the claim of the Applicant. In addition, the applicant has approached DRT and obtained recovery certificate for their claim against respective home buyers/allottees hence they are not left dryhanded and can proceed against homebuyers in view of the tripartite agreements executed by them with allotees. If the claim of said home buyers who had taken loans from applicant is already admitted then same amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
