AMIT KATYAL versus MEERA AHUJA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 03-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 389
389
AMIT KATYAL
v.
MEERA AHUJA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3778 of 2020)
MARCH 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: s.7 – Respondent
no. 4-corporate debtor came out with a housing project – However,
could not complete the project even after a period of eight years –
Respondent nos.1 to 3 (original applicants) who were the home
buyers preferred s.7 application before NCLT seeking initiation of
CIRP against Corporate Debtor – Original applicants sought refund
of an amount of Rs.6,93,02,755/- due to an inordinate delay in
completion of project and failure to handover possession within
the stipulated time – The said application was filed on 06.12.2018,
i.e., prior to the amendment to s.7 of the IBC, which now permits
100 or 10% of the home buyers/allottees to apply under s.7 of the
IBC – NCLT admitted s.7 application and appointed the Interim
Resolution Professional (IRP) and declared a moratorium –
Appellant challenged the order of admission of s.7 application before
the NCLAT – During the hearing before the NCLAT, the appellant
tried to settle the matter with the original applicants, however, the
settlement did not go through – By impugned order, NCLAT dismissed
the appeal and upheld the admission order and directed
commencement of CIRP – The IRP issued the public announcement
on 10.11.2020 and constituted the Committee of Creditors on
23.11.2020 – In the meantime, instant appeal filed – This Court,
while issuing notice, stayed the operation and implementation of
impugned order, subject to appellant depositing the amount of
Rs.2,75,55,186/- with interest in the Registry of this Court –
Appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 3,36,02,000/- with the Registry
– Three home buyers preferred IA No. 105732 of 2021 for
impleadment – When the present appeal was taken up for further
hearing on 04.02.2022, it was reported that the original applicants
as well as 79 other home buyers settled the dispute with the
Corporate Debtor whereby it was agreed that the corporate debtor
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
shall complete the entire project and hand over the possession to
the home buyers (who want the possession), within a period of one
year – It was also submitted on behalf of the original applicants
that they have also settled the dispute with the corporate debtor
and they had agreed to refund the amount of Rs.3,36,02,000/- with
applicable/accrued interest to the original applicants – Therefore,
it was requested to record the settlement and permit original
applicants to withdraw CIRP proceedings pending before the NCLT
– Pursuant to order dated 4.2.2022, the original applicants preferred
IA No. 18679 of 2022 under Art.142 of the Constitution of India r/
w rr.11 and 12 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016,
praying for permitting original applicants to withdraw CIRP
proceedings on their being paid a sum of Rs.3,36,02,000/- along
with applicable interest, out of the amount deposited by the appellant
in the Registry of this Court and also dismiss all matters pending
between the appellant and original applicants and close the CIRP
proceedings – Held: In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, where out of 128 home buyers, 82 home buyers will get the
possession within a period of one year, as undertaken by the
appellant and corporate debtor, coupled with the fact that original
applicants have also settled the dispute with the appellant/corporate
debtor, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Art.142 of the
Constitution of India r/w r.11 of the NCLT rules, 2016 and to permit
the original applicants to withdraw the CIRP proceedings – The
same shall be in the larger interest of the home buyers who are
waiting for the possession since more than eight years – Even the
object and purpose of the IBC is not to kill the company and stop/
stall the project, but to ensure that the business of the company
runs as a going concern.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. The original applicants (respondent Nos. 1 to 3)
now have moved before this Court by way of an interlocutory
application No. 18679/2022, praying for permitting them to
withdraw the CIRP proceedings initiated by them against
respondent no.4 – Corporate Debtor by submitting, inter alia,
that the appellant has agreed to pay to the original applicants
Rs.3,36,02,000/- with applicable/accrued interest thereon and
they do not propose to there

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.