1. We have heard Ld. Sr. Counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing the Appellant in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 499 of 2021 and Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Amarjeet Singh Chandhiok representing the Appellant in CA (AT) (Ins) NO. 500 of 2021 on the question of admission as well as adinterim order.

2. Brief facts of these Appeals are that Vipul Greens Residents Welfare Association (RWA) have filed an Application under Section 7 of the IBC for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor (Respondent No.2). All 644 flat buyers of the Vipul Greens Projects have been handed over the possession of flats way back in 2013. The grievance of RWA is that the Corporate Debtor as per the flat buyers purchase agreement and maintenance service agreement has not transferred the security amount about 6.8 Cr. to RWA w.e.f 01.07.2018. Therefore, they have filed the aforesaid Application against the Corporate Debtor. Ld. Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order dated 12.07.2021 admitted the Application in C.P (IB) No.541(ND)/2019and initiated the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor (R.2).

3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor has filed the Appeal CA (AT) (Ins) No. 499 of 2021. Whereas against the impugned order home buyers of the other project i.e. Aarohan Residents of the Corporate Debtor have filed the Appeal CA (AT) (Ins) No. 500 of 2021 on the ground that due to initiation of the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor they would suffer as it would delay in completion of the project and they will not get the possession of the flats in time frame.

4. The ground raised in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 499 of 2021 is that the Respondent No. 1 herein (RWA) have no locus standi to file Application under Section 7 of the IBC. After completing the projects, the home buyers cannot be treated as allottee as defined under RERA. The Application is not maintainable as the Application is not filed jointly as per the second proviso to Section 7 (1) of the IBC. The other ground is that the security amount does not fall within the definition of Financial Debt as defined under Section 5(8) of the IBC. It is also submitted that the figures mentioned in the calculation chart are incorrect, however, the chart relied upon in Para 7 (xiv) of the impugned order. It is submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has erroneously admitted the Application under Section 7 of the IBC. Due to this erroneous order, the construction projects of the Corporate Debtor are heldup. The Appellant has a good case in the Appeal, therefore, the CIRP may be stayed till pendency of this Appeal.

5. In the Appeal CA (AT) (Ins) No. 500 of 2021 the same grounds have been projected and prayed that if the CIRP is not stayed the Appellant would suffer and it would delay in completion of the projects.

6 .Mr. Abhijeet Sinha LdLd. Sr. Counsel Mr. Arun Kathpalia on caveat submits that RWA is a Registered Welfare Society representing the flat buyers. RWA has not filed the Application as an allottee as defined under RERA. Therefore, it is not required to fulfil the criteria of second proviso to Section 7 of the IBC. It is also submitted that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has elaborately dealt with the grounds which are raised in this Appeal. He further submits that the interest bearing maintenance security deposit falls within the definition of Financial Debt and the Corporate Debtor has committed default. Thus, there is no flaw in the impugned order. If the CIRP is stayed then it will prejudice the rights of the flat buyers, therefore, he vehemently opposes the prayer for staying CIRP.

7. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Ld. Counsel on caveat appearing for Respondent No. 1 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 500 of 2021 submits that the Appellants in this Appeal are not banafide homebuyers but they are the ex-director of the Corporate Debtor Company. They have no locus to file this Appeal and the Appeal is filed at the instance of Corporate Debtor. He submits that the Appellant has no prime facie case to challenge the impugned order. He submits that ordinarily CIRP proceedings cannot be stayed and the Appellant has failed to make out a case for staying the CIRP.

8. We have considered the rivals submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through the impugned order. At this stage, without expressing any opinion, we admit the Appeal but we are not inclined to stay the CIRP.

9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 may file Reply Affidavit within ten days. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed one week thereafter.

10. Let the matter be fixed ‘For Admission (After Notice)’ on 12th August, 2021.