Ashmeet Singh Bhatia Vs Rakesh Verma (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that regulation 16A(3A) of the CIRP Regulations has to be followed for replacement of Authorised Representatives. Adjudicating Authority duly relied on regulation 16A(3A) and rejected the application of the appellant.
Facts- This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant, a Homebuyer of Tower – 19 in the Lotus Panache Project of M/s. Granite Gate Properties Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. This Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court – II) in I.A. No.1158/2024 filed by the Appellant by which Appellant sought replacement of Authorised Representative of the Homebuyers. By the Impugned Order, the Application filed by the Appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the Order rejecting I.A. No.1158/2024, this Appeal has been filed.
Conclusion- Held that when a procedure for replacement of the Authorised Representatives have been introduced in the Regulations by 16A(3A) inserted on 18.09.2023, the said statutory provision has to be followed for replacement of Authorised Representatives. Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in relying on the Regulation 16A(3A) of the CIRP Regulations for not accepting the Application of the Appellant.
