SC pulls up IRP for demanding money from Amrapali buyers ›

This is open cheating. Homebuyers cannot be losing from both ends. Are you (IRP) siding with these fellows (the company). THE SUPREME COURT

NEWDELHI:FINANCIAL creditors and institutions cannot take over properties constructed using homebuyers’ money, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday while passing critical remarks against the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), appointed in the insolvency proceedings against Amrapali, for demanding additional money from buyers who are yet to get possession of their flats.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Misra ordered that as the homebuyers have not been given possession of the flats, the IRP will not insist that they make any deposit or issue any notice.

“This is open cheating. Homebuyers cannot be losing from both ends. Are you (IRP) siding with these fellows (the company).you want to cheat them (buyers) from both ends. Your prayer is obnoxious. These people do not even know whether they will get their flats,” the court said, adding, “You people (company) have diverted the money collected from homebuyers. The creditors also want the homebuyers’ money.”

The court is hearing homebuyers’ petition against the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) order to initiate insolvency proceedings against Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited.

The IRP counsel justified the demand on the grounds there was no money in the account of the company facing insolvency. He said there was no money to even install firefighting equipment in 21 towers in phase-i of Silicon City, Noida, where 2,000 families were living. The IRP said at least ₹12 crore was needed to carry out the task and for day-to-day functioning ever since he had taken over the company on the NCLT’S directions. The court directed Amrapali, the promoter of Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited, to make sure the electrical infrastructure and fire safety works in the towers were functional in four weeks.

It also asked the embattled real estate firm to submit a comprehensive plan on how it proposed to complete its pending projects within seven days.

“Let the respective parties give their views to the proposal within 10 days of receiving the proposal,” the bench said.