The Delhi High Court held that Moratorium ceases to exist once proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) culminates.
The Appellants have placed on record the to show that they have been defrauded by one builder, namely, Kunal Structural Developers and Industries Pvt Ltd. (Respondent No.3) in collusion with Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (Respondent No. 4). The petitioner in the present writ petition is Sunil Kumar Pandey and Anr.
The Appellant has already approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sunil Kumar Pandey v. Kunal Structural Developers and Industries Pvt Ltd and Anr and secured an order in their favour. The Appellants has also filed a civil suit, whereby they have sought injunctions restraining the Respondent Bank from encashing the cheques given by the Appellants, and also, demanding the EMI from the Appellants every month.
The appellants have also filed a writ petition before the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the decision of the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court, the present appeal has been filed before the Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
A Coram consisting of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that “The Appellants have claimed that the Single Judge has failed to note that the civil suit has been rendered infructuous due to the moratorium imposed upon Respondent No. 3. However, this anxiety of the Appellants is ill-founded as the moratorium operates qua Respondent No. 3 i.e the Builder, and not the Respondent No. 4 i.e the bank.”
“In any event, the moratorium will cease to exist once the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code culminates. In light of this, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the Impugned Order” the Court ruled.
Dismissing the petition, the Court noted its grief that “It is a rather unfortunate trend that builders often resort to dilatory tactics, defraud homebuyers by selling units to multiple individuals, delay the execution of projects, and execute projects without requisite sanctions. Invariably most of such builders also undergo insolvency. The greatest loss is incurred by innocent homebuyers who are not only forced to embroil themselves in litigation but are also divested of their hard-earned savings.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
