Sneha Kore Vs Arun Kapoor (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of claim in CIRP of corporate debtor justified since Appellants failed to establish the crucial aspect of transfer of monies to the bank account of Corporate Debtor for purchase of flats.
Facts- The Appellants submitted that they entered into an Agreement for Sale in January 2014 with the Corporate Debtor for the purchase of Flats in the Arizona wing of the project developed by Monarch Brookfields LLP in Navi Mumbai. The Corporate Debtor failed to deliver possession of the flat, prompting the Appellants to institute a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, vide its order dated 23.09.2019, granted relief in their favour by directing the Corporate Debtor to provide possession of the specified flat or, at the Appellant’s discretion, possession of an equivalent flat of the same dimensions in the same locality, accompanied by execution of requisite documents, within two months from the date of the order. In the alternative, at the Appellant’s election, the Corporate Debtor was mandated to refund Rs. 45,85,750/- along with interest at 15% per annum calculated from 17.01.2013, until full realization.
The Appellants averred that they repeatedly urged the Corporate Debtor to adhere to these directives, yet the latter persistently neglected to comply. Thereafter, CIRP was commenced against Corporate Debtor but Appellants were unaware about the same. The Appellants submitted that it was only in August 2023 that they learned of the ongoing CIRP and the necessity to submit a proof of claim under the Code and regulations, whereupon they filed Form CA electronically via email on 25.08.2023, with the Respondent No. 1.
