MUKESH KUMAR AND ORS Vs. AMR INFRASTRUCTURES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners' claim to be 'Operational Creditor' within the meaning of sections 8 & 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'the Code') and have prayed that insolvency process be initiated against Respondent 'Corporate Debtor' as it has committed default and has not been able to pay despite the demand made..

(2.) Facts in brief may first be noticed. The petitioners are joint holders of an allotted apartment in the project of the Respondent Company known as "Adventure Mall' They had proposed to develop the aforesaid project at Plot No. 9, Tech Zone, Greater Noida. The Respondent had failed to pay admitted debts of Rs. 29,44,175/- which is the amount paid by the Petitioners towards the allotment of commercial shop admeasuring 265 Sq. Ft. bearing No. 0-14B for a total sum of Rs. 22,52,500/-. They claim the refund advance payment made alongwith assured returns of Rs. 6,08,175/- from 16/10/2014 till date. After signing of the MOU on 12.7.2013 the constructions is at stand still and there is no hope whatsoever of construction being carried out as per the terms of MOU. Accordingly the petitioners served a demand notice on 27.1.2017 under section 8 of the Code and the same has not been replied by the Respondent. On the basis that the notice has not been replied the petitioners claim that the default has been admitted by the Respondent as there is no bona fide defence. Therefore Insolvency process is required to be initiated.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and are of the view that against the respondent similar relief was claimed in the earlier two cases namely Sajive Kanwar v. AMR Infrastructure (C.P. No. 06/2017 decided on 16.2.2017) and Col. Vinod Awasthy v. AMR Infrastructure Ltd. (C.P. No. (IB)-10(PB)/2017 decided on 22.2.2017). The issue raised before us is squarely covered by the aforesaid two judgements. Therefore the question of facts and law are similar as would be evident from the perusal of paras 7 to 11 of the judgement rendered in the case of Col. Vinod Awasthy v. AMR Infrastructure Ltd. which read as under:-