Atul Kumar Kansal vs Owners Welfare Association, Universal Trade Tower

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Learned Counsel appearing  for  the  Respondent-Owners  Welfare  Association,  Universal  Trade Tower as well as Intervener.

This Appeal has been filed against the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 04.04.2022 by which I.A. No. 1473 of 2022 praying for various reliefs have been rejected.

The Adjudicating Authority in the Order has observed that Resolution Professional admits the fact that Project Universal Trade Tower is not subject of the Resolution Plan hence the Court is not inclined to allow any prayers of the Applicant.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant who is Resolution Professional submits that Appellant is not denying the submission made before the Court that project is not part of the Resolution Plan however under the conveyance deed certain rights were of the Resolution Professional and there are already Applications (I.A. No. 738 of 2019 and 500 of 2019) under Section 66 and 65 of the I&B Code, 2016 which are pending consideration.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor has already been approved and under the Resolution Plan there is specific clause 8 where Universal Trade Tower has been dealt with in following manner:

Sl. No.

Name of Project

Number of claims

Amount (Rs.    In Crores)

Provision  under Resolution Plan

Status/Comments

…

….

…..

……

……

……

8

Universal Trade Tower

43

20.94

Rights of allottees   to   be determined    on basis     of     the outcome of Application   CA No.    500/2019

for  appointment of   local Commission which  is pending  [pg. 335, Vol-II]

Project    is    complete and            occupation certificate   has   been received.   The   entire area  is  fully  sold  to allottees,  there  is  no asset    belonging    to Corporate   Debtor   in the  Project.  There  is overselling     due     to multiple   duplicate

sales made by Corporate   Debtor which  would  need  to be resolved by the civil court  and  cannot  be addressed   in insolvency

proceedings.

It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid part of the Resolution Plan, liberty was reserved to the RP to resolve the issue in the Civil Court.

We are of the view that when the Universal TradeTower is not the subject matter of the Resolution Plan, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting prayers made in I.A. No. 1473 of 2022. In so far as the Applications which according to the Appellant have been filed for cancellation of deed they are pending consideration, we do not see any reason to make any observations with regard to such applications. These applications shall be considered in accordance with law. It is however observed that with regard to the pending I.As it shall be open for the parties to make such submission or to take such steps as may be permissible in law.

With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.