Back
Page 1 of 11
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, PRAYAGRAJ
IA No.356/ALD/2020
In
CP (IB) No.76/ALD/2019
In the matter of
Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
And
In the matter of:
Mr. Anuj Kumar Tiwari
RP of Sparkspell Homes Private Limited
.... Applicant
And
Mr. Saurav Pandey
Deepak Gupta (HUF) &
Mrs. Indu Mittal
Mr. Mohit Maheshwari
Mr. Sudhir Shukla
....... Respondents
Versus
Order reserved on: 04.04.2022
Order pronounced on:23.05.2022
Coram:
Sh. Rajasekhar V.K.
:
Member (Judicial)
Sh. Virendra Kumar Gupta
:
Member (Technical)
Appearances (via video conference):
For Applicant
: Sh. Srijan Mehrotra, Adv.
For the respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Varun Singh & Milan Singh Negi, Advs.
ORDER
Per:
Sh. Virendra Kumar Gupta (Technical)
1.
Though the grounds of relief are not happily worded, still we thought it fit to
consider this application as the whole process of CIRP has come to a standstill
due to the pendency of this application, which affects the voting rights of the
members of the CoC. The CoC comprises of respondent nos. 2 & 3 as majority
voting rights holders, and this may result in great disadvantage to other
stakeholders.
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, PRAYAGRAJ
IA No.356/ALD/2020 in
CP (IB) No.76/ALD/2019
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 11
Facts in brief
2.
The Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP by the order of this Adjudicating
Authority dated 28th August, 2019. Mr. Mohit Maheshwari was appointed as
IRP. The Respondent No.2 & 3 filed their claims in Form-C before the IRP on
11th September, 2019. The respondent No.2 claimed the outstanding amount at
₹7,53,38,914/- which included principal amount of ₹80,00,000/- and interest
component of ₹6,73,38,194/-. In respect of respondent No.3, the claim amount
at ₹3,93,12,477/- which comprises of principal amount stands of ₹1,30,00,000/-
and interest of ₹2,63,12,477/-.
3.
The erstwhile IRP accepted their claims. However, the IRP was replaced and
Mr. Sudheer Shukla was appointed as RP by this Adjudicating Authority dated
23.10.2019. Subsequently that RP was also replaced by the order of this
Adjudicating Authority dated 30th August, 2020. The present RP was appointed
in his place and is continuing as such. An application for change of this RP was
also filed in IA (IB) No.357/ALD/2020 which have been dismissed by this
Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 20.04.2022. Notably, all such
applications/actions have been taken by CoC wherein these respondents are
having majority voting rights.
4.
This RP has filed this application for re-consideration and re-valuation of the
claim amount for the reason that these were given in violation of provisions of
Section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013 and terms and conditions relating to rate
of interest were out of proportion.
Contentions of RP
5.
In this background, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Counsel
for the RP appeared and submitted that in the present case, the RP has sought
directions of this Authority as he is of the view that the amount claimed and
admitted by earlier IRP is not appropriate and not in accordance with the
acceptable norms of business. To this effect, it was submitted that in case of
loan of ₹80,00,000/- the rate of interest was 4.26% per month which defined all
logics. Respondent No.3 was a buyer of five flats. However, an assured return
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, PRAYAGRAJ
IA No.356/ALD/2020 in
CP (IB) No.76/ALD/2019
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 11
was also promised with the option of buy back and such assured return was
computed at the rate of 27.5% per annum compounded monthly. Hence, in
effect, the simple rate would have been much higher rate.
Content
