Bombay High Court - Where Part Occupancy Certificate of a Project was granted under the rules of the Authority, a flat owner can not seek cancellation of it on the ground of violation , affecting the other owners , who may not be a party to the case.

before The Bombay High Court

Sanjay Phulwaria And Others

vs

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority And Others

Writ Petition Lodging No. 2639 Of 2018 With Notice Of Motion Lodging No. 542 Of 2018, Chamber Summons No. 238 Of 2018

decided on 16-10-2018

Where Part Occupancy Certificate of a Project was granted under the rules of the Authority, a flat owner can not seek cancellation of it on the ground of violation , affecting the other owners , who may not be a party to the case.

Chattisgarh RERA Notification on Joint Venture Agreement between Land Owners and Developers

 Joint Venture Agreement between Land Owners and Developers

 Chattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) vide circular No./94 /RERA/2023/1956 dated 01/12/2023 directs following clauses to be mandatorily added in the joint venture agreement between the land owners and builders:

1. The land owners and the builders shall be jointly & severally liable to fulfill all obligations under RERA;
2. The Agreement to Sale with the allottee should be signed by both.

NCLAT New Delhi- Association of the home-buyers of Real Estate Project is aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 61 of the Code.

 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Principal Bench, New Delhi

Real Estate Regulatory Authority

v.

D.B. Corp Ltd. & Anr.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1172-1173 of 2022 with 1321 of 2022

Decided on 08-Dec-23

Brief about the decision:

Facts of the case

• Corporate Debtor entered into Barter Agreement with Operational Creditor for extensive advertising campaign of its projects. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Operational Creditor was to publish Advertisement for consideration which included cash component and Barter Component. The Cash Component against the advertising was to the paid and the Barter Component was to be utilized in form of allotment of units which were required to be transferred in favour of the Operational Creditor.
• The RERA received various complaints from allottees of the Corporate Debtor, which complaints were entertained and various orders related to different projects were passed in the year 2020-21 directing the Corporate Debtor to refund the amount along with compensation to various complainants. RERA also passed an order on 18.08.2021 under Section 35 of the RERA Act, 2016 to investigate about the diversion of funds from the designated account.
• Orders were also passed on 23.03.2022 by RERA revoking the registration of real estate project ‘Aakriti Business Arcade’ and directing for appointment of an agency for completion of the said project under Section 8 of the RERA Act, 2016.
• An application under Section 9 was filed by the Operational Creditor before the Adjudicating Authority on 02.02.2022 claiming default of operational debt of Rs.10,77,17,000/- with interest consequent to the Barter Agreement entered between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor and same has been admitted by Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Indore Bench, Court No.1.
• Appellants herein Regulatory Authority(RERA) constituted under Section 20 of the RERA Act, 2016, Interim Resolution Professional and Aquacity Consumer and Societies Welfare Society’ which claim to be association of 74 homebuyers have challenged the CIRP admission order under Sec. 9 of IBC of NCLT.
• The Appellant, Aquacity Consumer and Societies Welfare Society claiming to be a society of homebuyers claimed to have filed two consumer complaints under Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for its members/homebuyers. The NCDRC allowed both the Consumer Complaints and directed the Corporate Debtor to refund the amount collected from the homebuyers along with interest of 9% pa from the date of possession. Civil Appeals were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Appellant Association for modification of the order of NCDRC to the extent that the interest should be from the date of payment and not from the date of possession. In the Appeals notices were issued.

Decision of the Appellate Tribunal

A. Question No. I: Whether RERA has locus to challenge CIRP admission order before NCLAT?

• Section 61 of the Code, 2016 provides for an Appeal by “any person aggrieved by the Order of the Adjudicating Authority”. Section 61, sub- Section (1) uses the expression “any person aggrieved”.(p12)
• RERA is a statutory authority under Section 20 sub-section (2). RERA is a body corporate and is entitled to sue or to be sued in its name. RERA is thus fully competent to sue in its name. Question of locus to file an Appeal as an aggrieved person and the question as to whether appeal filed by the aggrieved person is to succeed, are two different questions and the question of locus is not dependent on success of the grounds in the Appeal.(p18)
• In the present case the RERA has taken various actions against the Corporate Debtor and various orders passed by RERA were to be complied by the Corporate Debtor and it was only due to continuation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor that RERA could not have proceeded further to initiate compliance of its order.(p23)
• NCLAT in paragraph 6 of the judgment in IBBI v. GTL Infrastructure & Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 110 NCLAT took the view that IBBI has nothing to do with the litigation between two parties i.e. Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor whereas in the present case the RERA who had already issued various orders against the Corporate Debtor has to do with the corporate debtor and was directly involved with the enforcement of the RERA Act qua the Corporate Debtor hence the judgment in the case of IBBI (supra) is clearly distinguishable.(p23)
• In view of the sequence and events of the facts which took place and various proceedings drawn by RERA much prior to issuance of notice under Section 8 of the Code by the Operational Creditor, we are satisfied that Appeal filed by the RERA cannot be thrown out on the ground of locus. The RERA held to be aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 61 of the Code.(p25)
• Thus, the Question No. I has to be answered in affirmative holding that RERA has locus to file Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1172-1173 of 2022.(p26)

B. Question No. II Whether Aquacity Consumer and Societies Welfare Society has locus to file Appeal within the meaning of Section 61 of the Code?

• Appellant being association of the home-buyers of Real Estate Project who has already initiated proceedings for direction of the interest of the home-buyers is aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 61 of the Code and the Appeal filed by the Appellant cannot be dismissed on the ground of locus.(p27)
• NCLAT answers Question No. II in affirmative holding that Aquacity Consumer and Social Welfare Society has a locus to file an Appeal under Section 61 of the Code against the Order dated 05th August, 2022.(p28)

C. Question No. III Whether Barter Transaction falls under definition of Operational Debt under IBC?

• There are nine Barter Agreements between the parties beginning from 29.09.2010 and last being 13.08.2019. Barter Agreement is entered between DB Corporation Ltd. and AG8 Ventures Ltd. which is executed on stamp duty of Rs. 1000.(p32)
• From the definition of claim under Section 3(6) of IBC it is clear that both sub-clause ‘(a)’ and ‘(b)’ refers to “a right to payment”. The claim must subsist for a debt being debt to become operational debt must relate to a right to payment unless operational creditor has a claim i.e. a right to payment against the corporate debtor, no operational debt can arise to enable Operational Creditor to initiate proceeding under Section 9 of the Code.(p41)
• The claim of Section 8 and Section 9 also indicates that proceedings under Section 9 by Operational Creditor can be initiated for payment of unpaid operational debt. Section 8(1) uses expression “demanding payment of the amount involved in the default” whereas Section 8(2)(b) uses the expression “the payment of unpaid operational debt” thus non-payment of operational debt is sine qua non for giving any demand notice under Section 8 of the Code leading to Section 9 also makes it clear that after the expiry of period of 10 days from the date of delivery of notice, sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the Code states if the Operational Creditor does not receive payment from the Corporate Debtor, operational Creditor may file an application for initiating a CIRP, thus not receiving the payment from the Corporate Debtor is a condition precedent for initiating Section 9 Application.(p41)
• Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Ors. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors. (2021) ibclaw.in 63 SC held that expression payment only refers to the payment of money and not anything of its equivalent in nature of Barter; when construing the same expression of payment in Section 30(2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that payment refers only to payment of money and not anything of its equivalent in the nature of Barter, the same interpretation has to be put to Section 8 and 9 also of the Code.(p47)
• There was no operational debt due on the corporate debtor on which operational creditor can claim payment of money from the corporate debtor to enable it to issue a demand notice under Section 8 or to file Section 9 Application before the Adjudicating Authority. Entire initiation of proceedings under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor is contrary to the scheme of IBC and no payment of money was due on the corporate debtor on basis of which unpaid dues any proceedings under Section 9 can be initiated.(p49)
• On the basis of Barter Agreement and consequent invoices, non-discharge of Barter Component by the Corporate Debtor shall not lead to any operational debt on basis of which payment of money can be demanded by the Operational Creditor from the Corporate Debtor. No operational debt was owed to the Operational Creditor in the facts of the present case hence initiation of proceedings under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor was contrary to the provisions of the IBC.(p50)

D. Question No. IV & V

• While considering Question No III it has already been held that there was no Operational Debt due on the Corporate Debtor and the proceedings initiated by the Operational Creditor being wholly outside Section 8 and 9 of the Code, no necessity to enter into Question No. IV & V for the purpose of the present case.(p51)

E. Conclusion

NCLAT concludes that:

• Application filed under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor alleging Operational Debt was non-maintainable since there was no operational debt on basis of which payment of money could have been demanded by the Operational Creditor from the Corporate Debtor on account of non-discharge of Barter Component by the Corporate Debtor. At best, the Applicant was entitled for claiming allotment of units as per the Barter Agreement between the parties for which it was open for the Operational Creditor to take such remedy as permissible.(p52)
• However, Section 9 Application was clearly not maintainable, the Adjudicating Authority committed error in admitting Section 9 Application without adverting to the real nature of the transaction between the parties, which is the very basis of the Section 9 Application, the Order of the Adjudicating Authority just is unsustainable.(p52)
• In result, we allow both the appeals, set aside the Order dated 05th August, 2022 admitting Section 9 Application. Both the Appeals having been allowed, no orders are necessary in different IAs, as noted above. The IAs are disposed of. Parties shall bear their own costs.(p53)

Source :- https://ibclaw.in/real-estate-regulatory-authority-v-d-b-corp-ltd-anr-nclat-new-delhi/

NCLAT New Delhi- RERA Authority also has locus to challenge in appeal against CIRP initiation Order under Sec. 61 of IBC before NCLAT.

 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Principal Bench, New Delhi

Real Estate Regulatory Authority

v.

D.B. Corp Ltd. & Anr.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1172-1173 of 2022 with 1321 of 2022

Decided on 08-Dec-23

Brief about the decision:

Facts of the case

• Corporate Debtor entered into Barter Agreement with Operational Creditor for extensive advertising campaign of its projects. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Operational Creditor was to publish Advertisement for consideration which included cash component and Barter Component. The Cash Component against the advertising was to the paid and the Barter Component was to be utilized in form of allotment of units which were required to be transferred in favour of the Operational Creditor.
• The RERA received various complaints from allottees of the Corporate Debtor, which complaints were entertained and various orders related to different projects were passed in the year 2020-21 directing the Corporate Debtor to refund the amount along with compensation to various complainants. RERA also passed an order on 18.08.2021 under Section 35 of the RERA Act, 2016 to investigate about the diversion of funds from the designated account.
• Orders were also passed on 23.03.2022 by RERA revoking the registration of real estate project ‘Aakriti Business Arcade’ and directing for appointment of an agency for completion of the said project under Section 8 of the RERA Act, 2016.
• An application under Section 9 was filed by the Operational Creditor before the Adjudicating Authority on 02.02.2022 claiming default of operational debt of Rs.10,77,17,000/- with interest consequent to the Barter Agreement entered between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor and same has been admitted by Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Indore Bench, Court No.1.
• Appellants herein Regulatory Authority(RERA) constituted under Section 20 of the RERA Act, 2016, Interim Resolution Professional and Aquacity Consumer and Societies Welfare Society’ which claim to be association of 74 homebuyers have challenged the CIRP admission order under Sec. 9 of IBC of NCLT.
• The Appellant, Aquacity Consumer and Societies Welfare Society claiming to be a society of homebuyers claimed to have filed two consumer complaints under Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for its members/homebuyers. The NCDRC allowed both the Consumer Complaints and directed the Corporate Debtor to refund the amount collected from the homebuyers along with interest of 9% pa from the date of possession. Civil Appeals were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Appellant Association for modification of the order of NCDRC to the extent that the interest should be from the date of payment and not from the date of possession. In the Appeals notices were issued.

Decision of the Appellate Tribunal

A. Question No. I: Whether RERA has locus to challenge CIRP admission order before NCLAT?

• Section 61 of the Code, 2016 provides for an Appeal by “any person aggrieved by the Order of the Adjudicating Authority”. Section 61, sub- Section (1) uses the expression “any person aggrieved”.(p12)
• RERA is a statutory authority under Section 20 sub-section (2). RERA is a body corporate and is entitled to sue or to be sued in its name. RERA is thus fully competent to sue in its name. Question of locus to file an Appeal as an aggrieved person and the question as to whether appeal filed by the aggrieved person is to succeed, are two different questions and the question of locus is not dependent on success of the grounds in the Appeal.(p18)
• In the present case the RERA has taken various actions against the Corporate Debtor and various orders passed by RERA were to be complied by the Corporate Debtor and it was only due to continuation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor that RERA could not have proceeded further to initiate compliance of its order.(p23)
• NCLAT in paragraph 6 of the judgment in IBBI v. GTL Infrastructure & Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 110 NCLAT took the view that IBBI has nothing to do with the litigation between two parties i.e. Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor whereas in the present case the RERA who had already issued various orders against the Corporate Debtor has to do with the corporate debtor and was directly involved with the enforcement of the RERA Act qua the Corporate Debtor hence the judgment in the case of IBBI (supra) is clearly distinguishable.(p23)
• In view of the sequence and events of the facts which took place and various proceedings drawn by RERA much prior to issuance of notice under Section 8 of the Code by the Operational Creditor, we are satisfied that Appeal filed by the RERA cannot be thrown out on the ground of locus. The RERA held to be aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 61 of the Code.(p25)
• Thus, the Question No. I has to be answered in affirmative holding that RERA has locus to file Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 1172-1173 of 2022.(p26)

B. Question No. II Whether Aquacity Consumer and Societies Welfare Society has locus to file Appeal within the meaning of Section 61 of the Code?

• Appellant being association of the home-buyers of Real Estate Project who has already initiated proceedings for direction of the interest of the home-buyers is aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 61 of the Code and the Appeal filed by the Appellant cannot be dismissed on the ground of locus.(p27)
• NCLAT answers Question No. II in affirmative holding that Aquacity Consumer and Social Welfare Society has a locus to file an Appeal under Section 61 of the Code against the Order dated 05th August, 2022.(p28)

C. Question No. III Whether Barter Transaction falls under definition of Operational Debt under IBC?

• There are nine Barter Agreements between the parties beginning from 29.09.2010 and last being 13.08.2019. Barter Agreement is entered between DB Corporation Ltd. and AG8 Ventures Ltd. which is executed on stamp duty of Rs. 1000.(p32)
• From the definition of claim under Section 3(6) of IBC it is clear that both sub-clause ‘(a)’ and ‘(b)’ refers to “a right to payment”. The claim must subsist for a debt being debt to become operational debt must relate to a right to payment unless operational creditor has a claim i.e. a right to payment against the corporate debtor, no operational debt can arise to enable Operational Creditor to initiate proceeding under Section 9 of the Code.(p41)
• The claim of Section 8 and Section 9 also indicates that proceedings under Section 9 by Operational Creditor can be initiated for payment of unpaid operational debt. Section 8(1) uses expression “demanding payment of the amount involved in the default” whereas Section 8(2)(b) uses the expression “the payment of unpaid operational debt” thus non-payment of operational debt is sine qua non for giving any demand notice under Section 8 of the Code leading to Section 9 also makes it clear that after the expiry of period of 10 days from the date of delivery of notice, sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the Code states if the Operational Creditor does not receive payment from the Corporate Debtor, operational Creditor may file an application for initiating a CIRP, thus not receiving the payment from the Corporate Debtor is a condition precedent for initiating Section 9 Application.(p41)
• Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Ors. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors. (2021) ibclaw.in 63 SC held that expression payment only refers to the payment of money and not anything of its equivalent in nature of Barter; when construing the same expression of payment in Section 30(2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that payment refers only to payment of money and not anything of its equivalent in the nature of Barter, the same interpretation has to be put to Section 8 and 9 also of the Code.(p47)
• There was no operational debt due on the corporate debtor on which operational creditor can claim payment of money from the corporate debtor to enable it to issue a demand notice under Section 8 or to file Section 9 Application before the Adjudicating Authority. Entire initiation of proceedings under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor is contrary to the scheme of IBC and no payment of money was due on the corporate debtor on basis of which unpaid dues any proceedings under Section 9 can be initiated.(p49)
• On the basis of Barter Agreement and consequent invoices, non-discharge of Barter Component by the Corporate Debtor shall not lead to any operational debt on basis of which payment of money can be demanded by the Operational Creditor from the Corporate Debtor. No operational debt was owed to the Operational Creditor in the facts of the present case hence initiation of proceedings under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor was contrary to the provisions of the IBC.(p50)

D. Question No. IV & V

• While considering Question No III it has already been held that there was no Operational Debt due on the Corporate Debtor and the proceedings initiated by the Operational Creditor being wholly outside Section 8 and 9 of the Code, no necessity to enter into Question No. IV & V for the purpose of the present case.(p51)

E. Conclusion

NCLAT concludes that:

• Application filed under Section 9 by the Operational Creditor alleging Operational Debt was non-maintainable since there was no operational debt on basis of which payment of money could have been demanded by the Operational Creditor from the Corporate Debtor on account of non-discharge of Barter Component by the Corporate Debtor. At best, the Applicant was entitled for claiming allotment of units as per the Barter Agreement between the parties for which it was open for the Operational Creditor to take such remedy as permissible.(p52)
• However, Section 9 Application was clearly not maintainable, the Adjudicating Authority committed error in admitting Section 9 Application without adverting to the real nature of the transaction between the parties, which is the very basis of the Section 9 Application, the Order of the Adjudicating Authority just is unsustainable.(p52)
• In result, we allow both the appeals, set aside the Order dated 05th August, 2022 admitting Section 9 Application. Both the Appeals having been allowed, no orders are necessary in different IAs, as noted above. The IAs are disposed of. Parties shall bear their own costs.(p53)

Source :- https://ibclaw.in/real-estate-regulatory-authority-v-d-b-corp-ltd-anr-nclat-new-delhi/

Supreme Court - Home buyers who had availed remedies under RERA, can not be treated as unsecured creditors in IBC.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3806 OF 2023

VISHAL CHELANI & ORS. .....Appellant(s)

Vs.

DEBASHIS NANDA .....Respondent(s)

Date of Decision :-October 06, 2023

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

1.  The appellants are home buyers, who had opted for allotment in a real estate project of  Buland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
2. Aggrieved by the delay in the completion of the project, the appellants approached the UPRERA which by its orders upheld this entitlement to refund amounts deposited by the, together with interest.
3. In the meantime, by the Order dated 28.02.2023 by NCLAT, in C.A.(AT) No. 991/2022 proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were initiated.
4. A resolution plan was presented to the adjudicating authority. In that plan, a distinction was made between home buyers, who had opted or elected for other remedies such as i.e. applying before the RERA and having secured orders in their favor, and those who did not do so.
5. Home buyers who did not approach authorities under RERA Act were given the benefit of 50% better terms than that given to those who approached RERA or who were decree holders.
6. The appellants felt aggrieved as their applications were rejected by the NCLT and their appeals in NCLAT too was unsuccessful. Consequently, they approached the Supreme Court.  

Contentions of appellants

1. with regard to the definition of financial debt [Section 5(8)(f)] which was amended in 2018 after which home buyer allottees in real estate projects also fell within the broad description of financial creditors, so A distinction cannot be made between one set of such home buyer allottees and another.

Contentions of defendants

1. the appellants cannot be permitted to secure two benefits. Having approached the UPRERA, they fell into a different sub-class of home buyers, who were entitled to specified amounts and, therefore, were unsecured creditors, as compared with allottees who had not invoked RERA remedies. It is submitted that such home buyers relinquished their rights under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

QUESTION OF LAW

1. The main issue before the Court was whether such a classification, differentiating between home buyers who sought relief under RERA and those who did not, could be upheld. In essence, the question was whether RERA-allotted financial claims should be treated differently from those not claiming relief under RERA in insolvency proceedings.

COURT'S FINDINGS

1. The Court is unpersuaded by the submission of the Resolution Professional’s view that once an allottee seeks remedies under RERA, and opts for return of money in terms of the order made in her favour, it is not open for her to be treated in the class of home buyer.
2. To treat a particular segment of that class differently for the purposes of another enactment, on the ground that one or some of them had elected to take back the deposits together with such interest as ordered by the competent authority, would be highly inequitable.
3. Section 238 of the IBC contains a non obstante clause which gives overriding effect to its provisions. Consequently its provisions acquire primacy, and cannot be read as subordinate to the RERA Act.
4. In view of the foregoing reasons,  appeal was allowed in the above terms and the impugned order is hereby set aside; the appellants are declared as financial creditors within the meaning of Section 5(8)(f) (Explanation) and entitled to be treated as such along with other home buyers/financial creditors for the purposes of the resolution plan.