NCLAT Puts Raheja Insolvency Process On Hold; Asks Company To Reach An Agreement With Buyer
In a move that might offer some relief to Delhi-based Raheja Developers, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has put on hold the insolvency proceedings initiated against the builder after a buyer moved the insolvency court over project delays.
Earlier, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had initiated proceedings against Raheja Developers on the plea of a homebuyer who had invested in the Raheja Sampada project.
The NCLAT has now directed Navin Raheja, chairman and managing director of the company, to resolve the issue with the homebuyer through negotiation. The tribunal has also said that Jitesh Gupta, the interim resolution professional, need not call for claims or constitute a committee of creditors in this case.
In this case, the homebuyer had received a joint allotment letter on August 3, 2012, and was promised delivery of flat by August 3, 2015. When the builder failed to deliver the project despite paying Rs 86.62 lakhs, he claimed a full refund along with 18 per cent interest.
Sometime back, the NCLAT had directed the NCLT to admit an insolvency plea against Raheja Developers. The Delhi bench of the NCLT had earlier dismissed the plea by one of Raheja’s operational creditors, Ahluwalia Contracts, on the ground of 'disputed claim.'
"We set aside the impugned judgment dated September 19, 2018, and remit the case to the Adjudicating Authority for admitting the application under Section 9 after notice to the 'corporate debtor' to enable the corporate debtor to settle the matter prior to the admission," said NCLAT said in its order.
Section 9 of the insolvency code empowers operational creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings against a company in case it defaults. The developer owes Ahluwalia Contracts Rs 6.5 crores in dues for providing plumbing and civil works’ services. According to Ahluwalia Contracts, Raheja Developers did not pay the dues despite the former sending several notices. The developer on the other hand, claimed that the quality of work provided by the contractor was poor, and they suffered losses owing to that, based on which they rejected payment demands.