The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate civil contractual disputes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the separation of civil and insolvency law.

ORDER

(Hearing through hybrid mode)

The present application has been filed byH. Shadham Ali, the Applicant under Section 60 (5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ('Code'/ 'IBC'), 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, seeking appropriate directions againstUmesh Garg, the Respondent/ Liquidator of Jeppiaar Cements Private Limited, in relation to the rejection of the Applicant’s claim and forfeiture of advance money arising out of an Agreement of Sale dated 13.06.2018, seeking the following reliefs:

“V. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT: In view of the facts above mentioned, the Applicant most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondent to execute and register the Sale Deed conveying the Schedule property to the Applicant on receipt of the Balance Sale Consideration and thus render justice.”

2. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT:

2.1. The Applicant submits that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against M/s. Jeppiaar Cements Private Limited pursuant to an order dated 10.10.2019 passed in CP(IB)685/(CHE)2019, and upon failure of resolution, liquidation was ordered by this Tribunal on 26.08.2022, appointing the Respondent as Liquidator. Pursuant thereto, a public announcement dated 08.09.2022 was issued inviting claims from stakeholders, and the Applicant duly participated in the liquidation process by submitting his claim.

2.2. It is submitted that prior to initiation of CIRP, he entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 13.06.2018 with the Corporate Debtor for purchase of 16.14 acres of land situated at Karuppur Senapathy Village, Ariyalur District, for a total consideration of Rs.1,46,87,400/-. An advance of Rs.75,00,000/- was paid, comprising Rs.25,00,000/- by cheque dated 13.06.2018, Rs.15,00,000/- by cheque dated 29.06.2018, Rs.10,00,000/- paid by the Applicant’s aunt Mrs. Anis Athiya Banu through cheque, and Rs.25,00,000/- paid in cash at the insistence of the Corporate Debtor. The receipt of the entire advance amount was duly acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor by written endorsement on the Agreement of Sale.

2.3. It is submitted that as per the terms of the Agreement, the Corporate Debtor was obliged to conduct survey and demarcation of the land within two months at its own cost, only thereafter was the Applicant required to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.71,87,400/-. The obligation to pay the balance amount was thus contingent upon performance of the said obligation by the Corporate Debtor. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to conduct the survey or demarcate the boundaries, despite having received substantial advance.

2.4. It is contended that in part performance of the Agreement of Sale, the Corporate Debtor handed over 21 original title deeds relating to the subject land to the Applicant in December 2018, which continue to remain in his custody as security under the Agreement. The Applicant has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and the failure to complete the transaction is solely attributable to the Corporate Debtor.

2.5. It is also submitted that upon commencement of liquidation, he submitted his claim in Form - C on 16.03.2023 for a sum of Rs. 1,02,05,000/-, comprising principal and interest, while Mrs. Anis Athiya Banu submitted a separate claim for Rs.10,00,000/-, both arising out of the same Agreement of Sale. The Applicant submits that claims relating to specific performance could not be adjudicated by the Liquidator and were therefore implicitly reserved. However, by order dated 27.05.2023, the Respondent rejected the Applicant’s claim, denied receipt of the cash payment, forfeited a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- and directed return of the original title deeds.

2.6. It is further subm