SHIV NARAIN SARIN Vs. EMINENT INFRADEVELOPERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shiv Narain Sarin claiming to be 'Operational Creditor' has filed the instant petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity the 'Code') against M/s. Eminent Infradevelopers Private Limited styling themselves as 'Corporate Debtor'. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that in the facts and circumstances narrated by the petitioner we have already dismissed few petitions including C.P. No. (IB)-10(PB)/2017 & C.P. No. (IB)-66(PB)/2017 by holding that the C.P. No.(IB)-63(PB)/2017 Mr. Shiv Narain Sarin v. M/s Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. person like the petitioner cannot regarded as 'operational creditor'.

(2.) Few facts may be noticed. The petitioner had agreed to purchase a premium apartment/penthouse for a consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only). In that regard he paid to the corporate debtor a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) at the time of execution the agreement. As per the terms of the agreement the corporate debtor was to deliver possession of the premium apartment within two years of the execution of the agreement. In other words the possession was to delivered by April, 2013 which was not done. The petitioner was surprised to discover that possession was given to others of various apartments by the corporate debtor and deliberate delay in delivering the possession to the petitioner was caused which led to the demand of refund of his deposit from the corporate debtor along with interest and loss suffered.

(3.) The corporate debtor as well as its directors assured the petitioner that they would refund the amount paid by him along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the payment and the loss incurred by operational creditor. As per settlement the corporate debtor promised to pay a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy five lakhs only). Accordingly, six cheques were issued for refund, interest and loss which have been dishonoured on account of 'insufficient funds'. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has claimed that he is an operational creditor and the respondent is corporate debtor.