Skip to main content

Publication Of Homebuyers’ Names In List Of Creditors Necessary And Will Not Violate Privacy

In IDBI BANK LTD vs JAYPEE INFRA TECH LTD., application was filed by the IRP before the Allahabad Bench of the NCLT, seeking certain directions regarding compliance with Regulation 13(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

Following Supreme Court's direction to include homebuyers in the committee of creditors, while displaying the details of allottees of real estate project of JIL on the website, IRP mentioned the unique code number assigned to the allottees instead of giving their names. According to the IRP, the investment in flats or plots of land by allottee is information private to the allottees and displaying their names and other personal details without their consent may amount to breach of privacy of any allottee which was opposed by IDBI and other creditors. 

The object of directing the JRP to publish the list of the creditors containing the names of the creditors along with the amount claimed by them, is to maintain transparency in respect of their claims and to determine their voting share. Therefore, such an information must be made available not only to the members of COC and to the other creditors who are not members of the COC and to the whole world. That is why the Regulation 1 3(2) enjoins on the IRP to publish the list of creditors containing the names of the creditors along with the amount claimed by them on the website of the Corporate Debtor.

The Tribunal noted that IRP had no case that any request was received from any homebuyer regarding withholding of identity. Even several homebuyers in the CoC are opposing the request of IRP. Hence, the request was termed as baseless as per the order passed on December 10.

Further, the Tribunal noted that each home buyer has got a voting share depending upon his claim amount verified by the IRP. Therefore, what are the claims verified in respect of each home buyer must be made known to the other claimants also. The Tribunal also rejected the argument of IRP that publication of names will infringe right to privacy.

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more