Skip to main content

Homebuyer Who Subrogated All Rights In Favour Of Lender Cannot Be Treated As Financial Creditor Under IBC

While by an ordinance in June, the Government has brought in the home buyers into the fold of the Insolvency Code by giving them the status of a financial creditor, a very interesting observation has beeb made by the NCLT Allahabad Bench which may lead to arguments to and fro in future.

In Ajay Walia vs M/s. Sunworld Residency Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), the Petitioner/Financial Creditor booked an Apartment from the Corporate Debtor and also entered into a supplementary agreement with the Corporate Debtor to invest in the Apartment under the housing loan scheme with an option to cancel the purchase of the Apartment on completion of 24 months from the date of disbursement of the bank loan amount to Corporate Debtor. Also as per the agreement, financial creditor was not liable to pay pre-EMI interest on the bank loan amount to the concerned bank, for a period of 24 months, from the date of disbursement of the bank loan amount, and the corporate debtor had given an undertaking to pay the entire pre-EMI interest on the bank loan amount directly to the concerned bank on behalf of financial creditor for a period of 24 months from the date of disbursement of bank loan amount.That, thereafter the allottee / applicant executed a Tripartite Agreement between the applicant, the Corporate Debtor and HDFC Bank Limited. Sub-para of Clause-3 provides that the Corporate Debtor assumed the liability of payment of EMI under the loan agreement as payable by the borrower to HDFC for 23 months from the date of first disbursement plus fractional period of month of first disbursement. As per  Clause 7 of the supplementary agreement, the 24-month period from the date of disbursement of the bank loan amount was to be a lock-in period and Petitioner had an option, exercisable at his sole discretion, to cancel his booking of the Apartment after completion of the Lock-in Period by sending a written notice to corporate debtor and Corporate Debtor was to refund the entire booking amount with some additional assured return to the financial creditor within a period of 30 days after completion of the Lock-in Period. Further clause 9 of supplementary agreement stipulates that upon receipt of the Cancellation Notice, the corporate debtor shall settle all outstanding dues of the loan account of the concerned bank (including any service tax) by making a payment directly to the bank concerned of the entire outstanding loan amount.

Now the Financial Creditor send the said notice under Clause 9 well within the stipulated time and the Corporate Debtor assured the Financial Creditor that Corporate Debtor would settle the entire loan amount payable to HDFC and the amount due to financial creditor plus interest @ 18% per annum within a few months and requested cooperation.

Subsequently the Corporate Debtor defaulting on payment to the bank, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal,

The Corporate Debtor raised the objection that the petitioner was not a financial creditor and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction as the agreement between parties have arbitration clause.

The Tribunal held that as per the Insolvency Code, the definition of a financial creditor includes a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred to. Further as per the Tripartite Agreement among other things the following conditions exist :-

1) in the event of cancellation of residential apartment for any reason whatsoever the entire amount advanced by HDFC will be refunded by the builder to HDFC forthwith;
2) That in the event of occurrence of default and/or for any reason whatsoever if the allotment is cancelled , any amount is payable to the Borrower by the Builder in the event of cancellation should be paid to HDFC;
3)  It unconditionally and irrevocable subrogates its right to receive any amount payable by the Builder to the Borrower in the event of cancellation in favour of HDFC and that the act of payment by the Builder to HDFC under this clause shall amount to a valid discharge of the Builder of its obligation to pay the Borrower such cancellation amount.

The Tribunal decided that as the applicant has subrogated all its rights alleged to have been created in its favour by the Supplementary Agreement in favour of the HDFC Bank, there is no liability for the Corporate Debtor to pay the cancellation amount to the applicant. In the circumstances the applicant cannot be treated as financial Creditor.



Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even