AMIT KATYAL Vs. MEERA AHUJA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interlocutory Application No. 105732/2021(for impleadment) is allowed in terms of the prayer made and they are ordered to be impleaded as respondents in the instant appeal.

(2.) That respondent no. 4 herein - Corporate Debtor - Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. had come out with a Gurgaon based housing project, namely, Krrish Provence Estate (hereinafter referred to as the 'Project'). That respondent no.4 herein - Corporate Debtor could not complete the project even after a period of eight years. Therefore, respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'original applicants') who were the home buyers preferred Sec. 7 application before the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, Delhi being CP No. 1722/ND/2018 seeking initiation of CIRP against respondent no. 4 - Corporate Debtor. That the original applicants sought refund of an amount of Rs.6,93,02,755.00 due to an inordinate delay in the completion of the project and failure to handover possession within the stipulated time. The said application was filed on 6/12/2018, i.e., prior to the amendment to Sec. 7 of the IBC, which now permits 100 or 10% of the home buyers/allottees to apply under Sec. 7 of the IBC.

(3.) Shri Kapil Sibbal, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Lokesh Bhola, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the three impleaders (IA No. 105732/2021), Shri Nakul Diwan, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Krrish Provence Flat Buyers Association, Mr. Yogesh Mittal, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Resolution Professional and Ms. Radhika Gupta, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the intervenors.