# In the matter of Atul Nathalal Patel vs. Manish Pardasani & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-11-27. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00058. This case involves an appeal against an order dated 25.07.2023 by the National Company Law…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 27 Nov 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00058
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/atul-nathalal-patel-vs-manish-pardasani-ors-12ccdd62

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against an order dated 25.07.2023 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench – IV, which admitted a Section 7 application filed by Respondents No. 1 to 3. The appellant, the suspended director of the Corporate Debtor, Atul Projects India Private Limited, challenged the order. The dispute arises from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and subsequent agreements (AoU, AoA) related to a real estate redevelopment project in Mumbai. The project involved the Corporate Debtor, Thakkars (partners), and Investors (Respondents 1-3). The Investors provided funds for the project, but due to disputes and lack of progress, the project stalled. The core issue revolves around the repayment of the investment and whether the Section 7

…

## Facts

In 2010, Atul Projects India Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) planned a redevelopment project in Mumbai. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed on 2010-05-16 with the Owners, Confirming Parties, and the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor was to pay ₹9.40 Crores to the Owners. Thakkars (Deepak Vinod Thakkar and Prashant Vinod Thakkar) entered into an Articles of Understanding (AoU) with the Corporate Debtor, agreeing to jointly redevelop the project. The Thakkars were to get an investment of ₹6 Crores. An Articles of Agreement (AoA) was signed on 2010-05-16 between the Thakkars and Manish Pardasani, Savinder Singh Lamba, and Kulbir Singh Rekhi (Respondents No. 1 to 3), the Investors. The Investors would provide ₹6 Crores to the Thakkars, and in return,

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Section 7 Application filed by Respondents No. 1 to 3, the Financial Creditor, was …

**Ratio:** The limitation for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC is governed by

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the cause of action arose when the project failed to commence

…

**Interpretation:** Clause 6 of the AoA provided an option to terminate the agreement if the

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied the ratio to the facts, noting that the project did not

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** Atul Nathalal…
- **Respondents:** Atul Projects…; Manish Par…

## Timeline

- **2010-05-16 — MoU, AoU, and A…**: Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Articles of Understanding (AoU), and Articles of…
- **2011-11-04 — Partial R…**: The Corporate Debtor returned an amount of…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/atul-nathalal-patel-vs-manish-pardasani-ors-12ccdd62