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

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.
2 comments
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more

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 ...
2 comments
Read more