AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shyam Babu Gautam, Member
The present Miscellaneous Application filed by Applicant in the capacity of Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor under section 60(5) read with section 45 and section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Respondent, Mr. Gopal Dalvi. During the pendency of the present Miscellaneous Application, this Tribunal was pleased to initiate Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor vide Order dated 27.02.2019 and eventually appointed the Applicant as Liquidator.
Applicant submitted that while performing his duties as Resolution Professional during the CIRP period learned that the Respondent was occupying unit no.7 in the building developed by the Corporate Debtor known as 'Kamla Spaces'. As the Applicant had limited access of the records and both the directors of the Corporate Debtor were in jail, Respondent was requested vide Letter dated 06.04.2018 to produce copy of the agreement/rent agreement in relation to the unit occupied by him.
Applicant further submitted that the Respondent vide Letter dated 08.05.2018 provided copy of the unregistered Agreement dated 02.09.2016 to the Applicant (Copy of the said Letter is annexed as Exhibit - 'B' to the MA at page 7). Upon thoroughly examining the said Agreement submitted by the Respondent and limited records available of the Corporate Debtor several discrepancies were noticed by the Applicant.
Applicant further states that the erstwhile directors in the year, 2013 had agreed to sell unit no.7 to the Respondent for the total consideration of Rs.3,78,00,000/- which was much lesser than the prevailing market rates. And to substantiate this submission the Applicant has provided details of few other transactions entered by the Corporate Debtor during the same period. Hence the present transaction squarely falls under the definition of undervalued transaction as provided under section 45 of the Code.
Further submitted that Respondent is illegally holding and enjoying possession of unit no.7 since the month of August, 2013 by just paying a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) to the Corporate Debtor towards part consideration. The fact that the Respondent is holding and enjoying possession since August, 2013 is evident from Clause(K) of the Agreement dated 02.09.2019 and also admitted by the Respondent in his Affidavit in Reply at para 6. It is pertinent to note that the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- is appearing in the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor as "Advances from Related Parties".
Applicant submits that the Agreement was executed by and between the Corporate Debtor and Respondent on 02.09.2016 (copy of the agreement is annexed as Exhibit - 'C' to the MA at page 8 onwards) wherein at Clause (J) it was recorded that the sister concern of the developers viz. Mathura Enterprises was liable to pay Respondent a sum of Rs. 43,00,000/- as on 31.08.2016 and pursuant to the discussion and understanding it is agreed between parties that the said amount of Rs. 43,00,000/- shall be adjusted and appropriated towards the sale consideration payable by the Respondent. Thus after adjusting a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- and 43,00,000/- the balance consideration payable by the Respondent to the Corporate Debtor was Rs. 3,30,50,000/-.
It is further submitted that the Respondent in its Affidavit in Reply dated 12.02.2019 at para 6 on oath has admitted that he himself alongwith Mr. Jitendra Jain i.e. one of the directors of Corporate Debtor were partners of Mathura Enterprises. It is the case of the Respondent that Mathura Enterprises which is jointly owned by Respondent and one of the directors of Corporate Debtor, owed a sum of Rs. 43,00,000/- to the Respondent which was compensated by the Corporate Debtor by adjusting the same towards part sale consideration payable by the Respondent for unit no.7. The Respondent except making these absurd statements has failed to produce a single document to substantiate its claim of Rs. 43,00,000/-. It is therefore submitted that the Respondent has fraudulently entered into this transaction with malafide intentions to misappropriate the assets of the Corporate Debtor and defraud the creditors of the Corporate Debtor which is gross violation of section 66 of the Code.
Applicant through the present Application has beyond reasonable doubt established its case that the Respondent is a related party of the Corporate Debtor and is illegally holding possession of unit no.7 since August, 2013 on the strength of an unregistered agreement admittedly by just paying a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the Corporate Debtor.
It is brought to the attention of this Bench that the present Application was substantially argued on 08.04.2019 and this Tribunal after hearing both sides was pleased to direct the Respondent as under:
"4. Having heard the submissions of both the sides few events are not in dispute that an Allotment Letter was issued and on that basis the answering Respondent has occupied the premises and still enjoying the same. It is not in dispute that there was an Agreement wherein a consideration as settled and on that settled amount a registered Sale Deed was to be executed.
However, due to unforeseen circumstances it could not completed. Only a small sum as an Earnest Money has so far been paid by the answering Respondent. Therefore, it is an established present position that the Respondent is enjoying the fruits of the valuable property without making a payment. This situation has two remedies. The first is that the Respondent should immediately deposit the impugned sum of Rs.3,78,00,000/- in the account of the Corporate Debtor which shall be put in a Fixed Deposit and shall remain unencumbered by any Authority. This deposit in the Bank shall remain protected asset of the Debtor Company which shall not be subject to any attachment by any Authority of Law. This decision is taken primarily with the intention that at least the Corporate Debtor shall be able to collect its legal dues. In turn the Resolution Professional shall issue receipt of the said payment with an Understanding that in due course of time the legal formalities of the Transfer of Property in favour of the Respondent shall be completed. The second option is that the Respondent Mr. Dalvi should pay a Monthly Compensation from the date of Allotment till date because he is enjoying the fruits of the property without making any investment, barring scanty Earnest Money. The Resolution Professional/ Liquidator are in process of finalization of the controversy to safeguard the interest of all stake holders. Hence at present due co-operation from all the connected parties are expected.
The Resolution Professional/Liquidator and the Respondent Mr. Dalvi shall sit together and inform this Bench about their decision in respect of Two Options enlisted herein above. One month's time of this Order is therefore granted. Therefore, to revert the position listed for hearing on 29.04.2019."
Even from the plain reading of the Order dated 08.04.2019, it is clearly understood that this Hon'ble Tribunal after taking stock of the situation directed the Respondent to either pay the total consideration of Rs.3,78,00,000/- or pay monthly compensation till date and matter was then adjourned to 29.04.2019 for reporting compliance.
Copy of the said Order dated 08.04.2019 is annexed herewith for ready reference."
Further Applicant submitted that the Respondent thereafter filed a Miscellaneous Application no.2894 of 2019 expressing his willingness of purchasing the said unit on "as is where and whatever it is basis" by paying the balance consideration of Rs.3,30,00,000/- in instalments.
In the present Miscellaneous Application once again came up for hearing on 28.01.2020. As the amount of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- was not disputed by the Respondent, this Tribunal was pleased direct the Respondent to pay Rs. 3,78,00,000/- minus Rs.47,50,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the said order was just an interim order directing the Respondent to pay at least the undisputed amount to the Applicant and present Application as well the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application bearing no. 2894 of 2019 filed by the Respondent were adjourned to 26.03.2020 for further hearing. As such the issue of Rs. 47,50,000/- was still pending adjudication.
The Applicant submits that he thereafter kept following up with the Respondent to make the payment of the balance consideration however the Respondent on some or other pretext delayed compliance of the aforesaid Order dated 28.01.2020. After numerous reminders the Respondent made payment of Rs.3,00,00,000/- and issued a post-dated cheque no. "000024" dated 10.02.2021, amounting to Rs.30,50,000/-drawn on HDFC Bank. Despite the direction of this Tribunal, the said cheque was dishonored with the remark "Payment Stopped by Drawer" vide bank memo dated 11.02.2021.
It is submitted that the Applicant issued Demand Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 calling upon the Respondent to pay the cheque amount of Rs.30,50,000/-. However, the Respondent instead of making the payment of the outstanding amount filed an Interlocutory Application No.535 of 2021 seeking direction against the Applicant to allot three car parking space as assured by the erstwhile directors in the Agreement dated 02.09.2016 and only then Respondent will make the payment of the cheque amount. This Tribunal vide its Order dated 03.08.2021 was pleased to reject the said IA filed by the Respondent on the grounds that the Applicant has no power to allot car parking.
The Applicant submits that it is quite evident from the above conduct of the Respondent that he has no intentions to pay even the admitted amount and also deliberately failed to comply with the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Respondent has consistently on some or other pretext tried to delay the outcome of the present proceedings.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant prayed to this Tribunal to direct the Respondent to forthwith vacate the Unit No.7, Kamla Spaces, Khiranagar, SV Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai and handover peaceful possession of the said premises to the Applicant and direct the Respondent to pay monthly compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the date of occupation i.e. 04.08.2013 till handing over peaceful possession. And this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to adjust the amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/-towards the payment of said monthly compensation.
SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENT BY WAY OF WRITTEN ARGUMENT TO MA 642 OF 2018 AND MA 2894 OF 2019:
The Respondent vide Agreement for Sale dated 2nd September 2016 agreed to purchase Unit No.7 admeasuring 1835 sq. ft. carpet area on the ground floor along with Three (3) car parking spaces in the project "Kamla Spaces" City Survey Nos. G/52, G/53, G/54 and G/55 of Village Bandra, lying being and situated at S.V. Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054 ("said Premises") executed between the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent.
The total consideration of the said Premises as recorded in the Agreement of Sale is Rs.3,78,00,000/-, of which an amount of Rs.47,50,000/- was already paid by Respondent herein which is recorded in Clause 11 of the said Agreement of Sale on Page No.24 of IA. No. 535 of 2021. The relevant clause is reproduced as under:
The purchaser shall pay to the Developer a sum of Rs.3,78,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Seventy-Eight Lac only) as the purchase price in respect of the said premises. The purchase price is inclusive of the proportionate price of common areas and facilities of the said Building. The said purchase price shall be paid by the Purchaser to the Developers in accordance with the installments, after deducting TDS 1% from the total consideration amount, as under:
11.1 Rs. 47,50,000/- Rupees Forty-Seven Lac Fifty Thousand Only paid by the Purchaser on or before the execution of these present (the payment and receipt whereof the Developers hereby admit and acknowledge);
11.2 Rs. 3,30,50,00/- Rupees Three Crore Thirty Lac and Fifty Thousand Only being the balance full and final consideration payable by the Purchaser to the Developers at the time of registration of the Agreement for Sale in favour of the Purchaser.
The Respondent was thus liable to pay the balance consideration of Rs.3,30,50,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Thirty Lakhs and Three Thousand Only) and obtain a registered conveyance of the said Premises in his favor.
The Applicant Liquidator preferred this Application wrongfully invoking to the provisions of Section 45 in this case despite knowing that my transaction with Corporate Debtor is not affected by the said provisions. For the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 45 of the Code it is requisite condition of the Code that the Applicant, who has been appointed as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, must upon examination of the transaction in satisfied that:
a. The transaction has been entered with Corporate Debtor at the relevant time as defined under Section 46 of the Code;
b. The transaction is undervalued in nature; and
c. The Transaction has not taken place in the ordinary course of business of the Corporate Debtor.
Only when the aforesaid three basic conditions are met, the Applicant as Resolution Professional is empowered and entitled to file an Application under Section 45 of the Code for declaring the transaction as void and for reversal of the transaction of the Corporate Debtor. The said transaction between Respondent and the Corporate Debtor does not meet any of the pre-conditions to qualify as falling under Section 45 of the Code. Accordingly, in context of the said conditions we state that:
a. Relevant Period
Respondent has acquired vested right title and interest in the said premises, which is the subject matter of the present Application, vide Letter of allotment dated 4th August 2013 on terms and conditions as stated thereon. The said Letter of Allotment was followed by execution of the Agreement for Sale dated 2nd September 2016, which in our respectful submission is only a continuation of the transaction which was entered between the parties in year 2013. Thus, the said transaction between the parties certainly is not carried out between the parties during the relevant period i.e. 1 year in case of non-related parties and 2 years in case of related parties preceding the CIRP commencement date as envisaged under Section 46 of the Code, which in the instant case commenced on 16th August 2017. Thus, for avoidance of any transaction as per these conditions the same had to take place post 17th August 2015. However the transaction between Respondent and Corporate Debtor was entered on 4th August 2013 by issuance of the Letter of Allotment by Corporate Debtor, which certainly by all means is beyond the relevant period as contemplated under Section 46 of the Code. Further, Section 45 of the Code specifically excludes those transactions that have been entered by the Corporate Debtor in its ordinary course of business.
b. Undervaluation
At the further outset, it is denied that the transaction that has been entered between the parties is an undervalued transaction as alleged by Applicant. The transaction between the Corporate Debtor and Respondent has taken place between the parties in the year 2013 and therefore, for the purpose of assessing whether the transaction is undervalued, it would be necessary and relevant for taking into account the prices that were prevailing in market at that point of time. The said building "Kamla Spaces" has been constructed by Corporate Debtor on property bearing CTS No. G/52, G/53, G/54 and G/55 on S.V. Road, Santacruz [West] and during the period 2013-14 as per the Ready Reckoner the value of the said circle rate was Rs.2,06,400/- per sq. meters equivalent to Rs. 19,178/- per sq. ft. Thus, the total value of the said premises considering the Ready Reckoner Price is Rs.3,51,91,630/- whereas under the said Letter of Allotment dated 4th August 2013 the said premises has been agreed to be sold and transferred to me for an agreed consideration of Rs.3,78,00,000/-, which is higher than the Ready Reckoner Price. A copy of the Relevant Extracts of the Ready Reckoner Price of the Property is annexed as EXHIBIT "C" to the Affidavit in Reply 12th February 2019 of Respondent. Hence it can be clearly seen that the said transaction executed between the Corporate Debtor and Respondent is not an undervalued transaction and the value mentioned in the Letter of Allotment dated 4th August 2013 and Agreement for Sale dated 2nd September 2016 is not undervalued transaction as falsely alleged and contended by the Applicant Liquidator.
c. Ordinary Course of Business / Stock in Trade
The Corporate Debtor is a Real Estate Company and selling of units and premises is the ordinary course of business activities. The said premises is not the assets of the Company but was its Stock in Trade and as such selling the said premises to me falls within the ordinary course of business. Taking this analogy in to account, the said transaction of selling, allotting and transferring the said premises to Respondent by execution of the letter of Allotment dated 4th August 2013 was transaction entered by Corporate Debtor in its ordinary course of business. Therefore, also the said transaction cannot be question under Section 45 of the Code.
Thus, from the aforesaid it can be seen that none of the test of Section 45 as envisaged by the Code is met by the Application taken out by Applicant Liquidator and therefore on this account alone the said Application is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and heavy costs be imposed on the Applicant. The said transaction was in ordinary course of business and the said payment of Rs. 43,00,000/- was a debt owed by the Corporate Debtor (being a separate legal entity) to M/s Mathura Enterprises which was adjusted against the same be paid by Respondent and adjustment was given in the said transaction which is also recorded and accepted by applicant Liquidator in its draft Agreement shared vide email dated 11th December 2020.
Respondent submits that merely because Company Petition has been admitted and Resolution Professional has been appointed would not mean and constitute that the rights and obligations of the parties who had entered into dealing with Corporate Debtor in its ordinary course of business stands revoked, cancelled or rescinded by the Resolution Professional /Liquidator.
Respondent further submits that the above contentions were already submitted before this Tribunal and the Order dated 8th April 2019 cam to be passed.
The Respondent herein filed Misc. Application No. 2894 of 2019 seeking few modifications of the Order dated 8th April 2019 including one of the prayers being that the Respondent herein has in aggregate made payment of Rs. 47,50,000/- in respect of the said Premises under the Agreement for Sale dated 2nd September 2016, which has been duly admitted and acknowledged by the Ex-Directors and not only Rs. 4,50,000/- as mentioned in the Order dated 8th April 2019 in respect of the said premises.
The Respondent submits upon hearing both the parties in MA. No. 642 of 2018 and MA. No. 2894 of 2019, this Hon'ble Tribunal by and Order dated 28th January 2020, was pleased to direct the Respondent to pay the balance consideration for the said Premises and to complete the sale thereof. This Tribunal accepted the Respondent's submission that only a sum of Rs. 3,30,50,000/- was due and payable in accordance with the terms of Clause 11 of the Agreement. The relevant portion of the said Order is reproduced as under:
MA-642/2018 & MA-2894/2018 - It was agreed by the proposed purchaser and the occupant of the property as well as the representative of the RP that the area as stipulated in the Agreement dated 02.08.2016 is to be clearly demarcated by way of a map.
It was also directed by this Bench that the balance amount i.e. Rs. 3.78 Crores minus Rs 47.5 Lakhs was to be paid and as per the Schedule of Payment that would be mutually agreed by both. However, the Registration and the full and final payment has to happen simultaneously.
Any NOC required by the Respondent for raising finance from a Financial Institutions may be given by the Petitioner on the request of the Respondent.
The Learned Counsel from SICOM mentions that No NOC from SICOM is required as SICOM has relinquished its right on this property as per Sections 52 and 53 of IBC.
The fact that an amount of Rs. 3,30,50,000/- is due and payable is also reflected in the draft Agreement forwarded by the Applicant Liquidator herein vide his email dated 11th December 2020. The Applicant Respondent vide his said email shared a copy of the draft Agreement to be executed and registered recorded in his own draft that the Respondent is liable to pay a balance sum of Rs. 3,30,50,000/-.
From the date of the Orders dated 8th April 2019 and subsequently on 28th January 2020 passed by this Tribunal, there were several communication and meeting held between the Applicant and Respondent in regards to finalizing the terms and conditions of the revised Agreement of Sale. However, at no point of time during the said discussion and communications the payment of Rs. 47,50,000/- was ever disputed or raised by the Applicant.
Despite the fact that as per Clause 9 of the Agreement of Sale dated 2nd September 2016 the Respondent is entitled to three car parking spaces, the Applicant Liquidator refused to mention the same in the revised Agreement of Sale to be registered by and between the Applicant Liquidator on behalf of the Corporate Debtor and Respondent. The fact of dispute in relation to the allotment of car parking space in evident from the email communications between the parties which are annexed to the Interlocutory Application No. 535 of 2021filed by the Respondent herein. Hence, it is evident that the only issue and dispute which stood between the parties was in relation to mentioning of car parking spaces in the Agreement. Rest all of the terms and conditions including advances money paid and balance payable) were finalized and agreeable to both the parties herein.
The draft Agreement for Sale which was shared by the Advocates for Applicant Liquidator vide their email dated 11th December 2020 itself shows that the Respondent was only liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,30,50,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Thirty Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only). The relevant clause in the draft Agreement is reproduced as under:
WHEREAS:
D. The Vendor after scrutinizing the records of the Company / Developer had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 642 of 2018 against Directors / Promotors of the Company / Developer and Mr. Gopal Shivram Dalvi before the Hon'ble National company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (special) Bench for declaring the said Earlier Agreement with respect to sale of the said Premises null and void and seeking physical possession of the same from Mr. Gopal Shivram Dalvi, Further, Mr. Gopal Shivram Dalvi at the time of hearing of the said M.A. showed interest and intended to purchase the said Premises and agreed to pay balance consideration of Rs. 3,30,50,000/- payable by him under the said Earlier Agreement to the Vendor. Accordingly, the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (Special) Bench vide Order dated 28th January, 2020 directed Mr. Gopal Shivram Dalvi to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 3,30,50,000/- to the Vendor as per the schedule of payment as mutually agreed by both and also directed that the full and final payment and registration should happen simultaneously. Copy of the Order dated 28th January, 2020 passed by this Tribunal is annexed as ANNEXURE "3" to the reply.
H. The Purchasers have agreed to complete the sale process and purchase the said Premises in due compliance of the Order dated 28th January 2020 and the discussion and on terms and conditions finalized with the Vendor by making payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 3,30,50,000/- (Rupees Three Crore Thirty Lac Fifty Thousand Only) of which a sum of [i] Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) has been paid by the Purchasers to the Vendor vide Cheque No. 000016 dated 10th October 2020 and [ii] Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) has been paid by the Purchasers to the Vendor vide Cheque No. 000021 dated 30th November 2020, both drawn on HDFC Bank, Bandra East Branch issued in favour of Kamla Real Estate Hub Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) and the balance amount of Rs. 2,30,50,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Lacks Fifty Thousand Only) is due and payable by the Purchasers to the Vendor in accordance with the payment schedule as mutually agreed herein;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSTH AND IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:
The Purchasers out of the balance amount of Rs. 3,30,50,000/-(Rupees Three Crore Thirty Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) paid to the Vendor on or before the execution of these presents a sum of [i] Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) vide Cheque No. "000016" dated 10 th October 2020 and [ii] Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) vide Cheque No. "000021" dated 30th November 2020, both drawn on HDFC Bank, Bandra East Branch issued in favour of M/s. Kamla Real Estate Hub Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) aggregating to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) towards part purchase consideration with understanding to make payment of balance consideration of Rs. 2,30,50,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) by post dated Cheques drawn as follows: -
Cheque
No./NEFT
Date
Bank
Amount
"000022"
31st December, 2020
HDFC Bank
Rs.1,00,00,000/-
"000023"
15th January, 2021
HDFC Bank
Rs.1,00,00,000/-
"000024"
10th February, 2021
HDFC Bank
Rs.30,50,000/-
The draft Agreement was sent vide email dated 11th December 2020 by the Advocates for the Liquidator cover email of the same reads as follows:
Dear Sir,
We are concerned for our client, Mr. Rajeev Mannadiar.
Attached herewith is the Final Draft of Agreement for Sale for your client's record.
Upon instructions we would like to state that our client shall not be in a position to accept any further modification, alteration or suggestion in the said draft.
Your client may proceed with payment of stamp duty and book an appointment for registration without any further delay.
Our client is available on 17.12.2020 or 18.12.12020 or 22.12.2020 or 24.12.2020 for the purpose of execution and registration of the attached Agreement for Sale subject to prior confirmation.
Regards.
Adv. Abdullah Qureshi
Senior Associate
INDIALAW LLP
Mumbai
+91 9821693842
Despite issues and disputes going -on, in due compliance of the said Order dated 28th January 2020, Respondent adhering to his part of obligation till date has paid Rs. 3,00,00,000/- to the Corporate Debtor in Liquidation as per the following schedule:
Sr.
No.
Payment of Mode
Date of Payment
Amount (Rs.)
1.
Cheque No. 00016
10th October,
2020
50,00,000/-
2.
Cheque No. 000021
3rd November,
2020
50,00,000/-
3.
Cheque No. 000022
31st December,
2020
1,00,00,000/-
4.
Cheque No. 000023
15th January,
2021
1,00,00,000/-
TOTAL
3,00,00,000/-
Hence, out of the total balance outstanding of Rs. 3,30,50,000/- the Respondent has already paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- leaving a balance sum of only Rs. 30,50,000/-
Respondent herein along with the above-mentioned Cheques had also issued Cheques No. 000024 of Rs. 30,50,000/- dated 10th February 2021 towards the full and final payment of the balance consideration as mentioned above. However, due to on-going disputes and refusal of the Applicant Liquidator to insert allotment of 3 car parking space in the revised Agreement of Sale, the Respondent herein was constrained to issue directions to his Bank to "Stop Payment" of said Cheque of Rs.30,50,000/-.
The Respondent, therefore, prays that Applicant Liquidator be hereby directed to register the Agreement for Sale in favour of the Respondent at the earliest. The Respondent undertakes to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 30,50,000/- (after deducting necessary TDS) on the registration of the Agreement.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT IN MA 2894 of 2019:
Applicant submits that on 4th August 2013, the Letter of allotment was executed between the Applicant and the Corporate Debtor placing the Applicant in use, occupation and possession of the Shop No. 7 on the Ground Floor in "Kamla Spaces". The Letter of Allotment was followed by execution of the Agreement for Sale dated 2nd September 2016. On 3rd November 2016, NOC was issued by SICOM. MA No. 642 of 2018 was filed in the year 2018. Liquidator was appointed for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 45 of the Code. Affidavit in reply was filed by the Applicant on 12th February, 2019. On 8th April 2019, Order was passed by this Tribunal directing the parties to have a joint meeting to decide on one of the option recorded in the said Order.
We heard the arguments of counsel in MAs and duly considered the merits of the present MAs on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we direct respondent to deposit balance amount with the Liquidator within 15 days. On receipt of balance sale consideration liquidator shall go ahead for execution of sale agreement.
If the respondent fails to deposit balance amount within the stipulated time Liquidator is directed to take necessary steps for fresh sale of subject property of this Application.
With the above observations and directions MA 2894 of 2019 and MA No. 642 of 2018 In CP No. 1092/MB/C-II/2017 is disposed of.