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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...