SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 6656

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Member (Judicial), Sh. Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer, Member (Technical)
Radius & Deserve Land Developers Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Radius & Deserve Builders LLP – Respondent
I.A. 1041/2024 In C.P.(IB) 592/MB/C-III/2022



Advocates:
For the Applicant : Sr. Adv. Gaurav Joshi, Adv. Animesh Bisht, Adv. Aastha Kaushal, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
For Respondent 1: Adv. Shyam Kapadia, Aneesa Cheema, Adv. Unnati Nandalaskar
For Respondent 2: Sr. Adv. Zal Andhyarujina, Adv. Karan Bhide, Adv. Swapnil Khatri, Adv. Mrinal Bhatnagar
For Respondent 3: Adv. Tulsi Shah

The Option Deposit does not constitute trust money as it was not segregated as required by trust principles, establishing a debtor-creditor relationship under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) - Option Deposit sought from Radius & Deserve Builders LLP (Radius LLP) - Radius Company, the applicant, contended that the deposit was trust money, exempt from moratorium during CIRP - The court examined the Option Agreement dated 14.09.2015, established that the option deposit was not in trust and did not separate funds, determining that the relationship was merely that of debtor-creditor. (Paras 8, 11, 49, 64)

(B) Trust law principles - The necessary elements for establishing a trust include intent, segregation of funds, and fiduciary duties - As the funds were allowed to be intermingled and no specific provisions indicated trust, the court ruled in favor of the debtor-creditor relationship. (Paras 12, 22, 38)

(C) The Option Agreement stipulated that if the option was not exercised within the specified period, a refund would be due, indicating a simple obligation to return funds rather than a trust. (Paras 5.8, 11, 31)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the option deposit could not be considered a trust as there was no express provision for such in the agreement and the funds were not segregated.

Issues: The main legal question was whether the Option Deposit characterized as trust money, exempt from CIRP moratorium.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the option deposit relationship did not exhibit the characteristics of a trust but rather represented a debtor-creditor situation, hence subject to the moratorium.

Result: The application was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. submissions by applicant and respondents (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. summary of applicant's position regarding option deposit (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. determination of trust status of option deposit (Para 10 , 11)
5. analysis of trust law and parameters for determining trust (Para 12 , 17 , 18)
6. parameters for establishing a trust (Para 13 , 15)
7. court analysis of the option agreement terms (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25)
8. court's consideration of absence of segregation (Para 22 , 27 , 30 , 31)
9. intent of parties and conduct regarding option deposit (Para 28 , 35 , 36 , 42)
10. resolution plan treatment of claims (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
11. conclusion and dismissal of application (Para 64)

1. M/s Radius & Deserve Land Developers Private Limited (Radius Company/ the Applicant) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is currently undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This application has been filed through its Resolution Professional (RP) of the Radius Company namely Aegis Resolution Services Private Limited primarily seeking return of the Option Deposit of Rs. 240.85 Crores.

2. Respondents

2.1 Respondent 1 is Radius & Deserve Builders LLP (Radius LLP/ Corporate Debtor) is also undergoing CIRP under the Code and is represented by its RP Mr. Jayesh Natvarlal Sanghrajka. It is an admitted position that the Applicant and Respondent No. 1 are related parties and controlled, interalia, by Mr. Sanjay Chhabria. Radius Company had entered into an Option Agreement dated 14.09.2015 with Radius LLP and had paid option deposit to Radius LLP under the said agreement which is sought to be refunded.

2.2 Respondent 2 is Chandak Realtors Private Limited (Chandak) in whose favour the the Slum Rehabilitation Authority had issued revised Letter of Intent dated 12.04.2023 for development of a land parcel in Kurla which was earlier being developed by the corporate debtor under, Letter of Intent dated 24.07.2013, but was terminated by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 20.09.2021. The limited prayer against R-2 is, to deposit any amount payable for reimbursement of expenses to the corporate debtor, in a separate bank account.

2.3 This application was filed in February 2024 while Chandak had submitted its Resolution Plan on 05.03.2024 which was approved by the CoC with 100% voting on 20.08.2024 and Chandak is now the Successful Resolution Applicant (Resolution Applicant) of the corporate debtor.

2.4 Respondent 3 is the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and merely a proforma party as no prayers are sought against it.

3. Brief background of the case

3.1. On 14.09.2015, Radius Company and Radius LLP entered into an Option Agreement. As per the terms of the Option Agreement, Radius Company paid the Option Deposit of Rs. 240,85,00,000/- to Radius LLP. As per the Option Agreement, Radius Company had an option to purchase Floor Space Index (FSI) on the land parcel being developed by Radius LLP in Kurla (hereinafter referred to as ‘Radius LLP Property’) on such terms and conditions as set out in the Option Agreement. The option period was of 60 months ending on 14.09.2020. Clause 5.1 of the Option Agreement provided that if the option was not exercised by Radius Company within the Option Period, then the Option Deposit shall be refunded by Radius LLP to Radius Company within 15 days.

3.2. It is undisputed position that Radius Company did not exercise its option to purchase FSI, within the option period, and that Radius LLP did not refund the option deposit to Radius Company. It is also admitted that Radius Company, under the management of the suspended director, never demanded refund of the Option Deposit from Radius LLP.

3.3. Subsequently, Radius Company was admitted into CIRP vide order dated 03.05.2023 in CP(IB)/892/2022 (Radius Company Petition). The IRP of Radius Company addressed letters dated 01.06.20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top