Case Law Details
N. Kumar Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. (NCLT Chennai)
The Dissenting Financial Creditor further submits that, as per Regulation 39 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, a prospective Resolution Applicant may submit Resolution Plan in accordance with the Code and Regulations. In such circumstances, the claim of the Resolution Professional that he will invite Expression of Interest project wise is not feasible as the same is against the provisions of the Code. Consequently, the same cannot be approved by the CoC.
On a thorough reading of the IBC, 2016 read alongwith the regulations made thereunder envisages the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor and it can be seen that there is no concept of limited CIRP or CIRP for specific projects anywhere.
It can be further seen in the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Union Of India [WP(Civil) No. 43 of 2019], that the IBC, 2016 is a beneficial legislation which can be triggered to put the Corporate Debtor back on its feet in the interest of unsecured creditors like allottees, so that a replaced management may carry out the real estate project as originally envisaged and deliver the flat/apartment as soon as possible or pay late fees for late delivery.
Moreover, in the present case, as no promoters have put forward any funds to avoid CIRP, the process of project -wise CIRP cannot be followed here as how it was followed in the Winter Hills judgement and the decision in Rajesh Goyal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
