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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more