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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more