# In the matter of Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs. Ashok Tripathi and Ors. CA(AT)(Ins)No. 452 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-08-14. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00165. This case involves an appeal against the admission of an application under Section 7 of the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 14 Aug 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00165
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sh-sushil-ansal-vs-ashok-tripathi-and-ors-ca-02c2dfb6

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against the admission of an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi) against M/s. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (Corporate Debtor). The application was filed by Ashok Tripathi and Saurabh Tripathi, claiming to be Financial Creditors based on orders and a Recovery Certificate issued by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) related to booking of dwelling units in a real estate project. The appellant, Sushil Ansal, challenged the admission order, arguing that the allottees did not meet the threshold limit criteria under the amended IBC and that the application was essentially for execution of a decree.

## Facts

Mr. Ashok Tripathi and Mr. Saurabh Tripathi booked dwelling units in the 'Sushant Golf City' project developed by M/s. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (Corporate Debtor) in Lucknow. Ashok Tripathi paid Rs. 1,62,43,133/- on August 5, 2014, and Rs. 8,37,300 as booking advance for a unit admeasuring 3746 sq. ft. Saurabh Tripathi booked a separate unit admeasuring 1229 sq. ft. on July 16, 2014, and paid Rs. 1,63,994/- as booking advance. Builder-Buyer Agreements were executed in September 2014. The Corporate Debtor was to deliver possession within two years of construction commencement, with the project start date notified as September 22, 2015. The allottees alleged that the Corporate Debtor failed to complete construction and abandoned the project. They

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether this is a fit case for invoking Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules to allow the parties to settle …

**Ratio:** Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules allows the Appellate Tribunal to invoke its powers for

…

**Reasoning:** The Appellate Tribunal noted that both the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were

…

**Interpretation:** Rule 11 provides the NCLAT with the power to allow settlement and terminate

…

**Application:** The Tribunal ultimately did not allow the settlement to proceed because it

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Sh. Sushil…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Ansal…; Ashok Tri…
- **Advocates:** Arun Kath…; Neeha N…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2014-07-16 — Booking o…**: Saurabh Tripathi booked a unit…
- **2014-08-05 — Payment fo…**: Ashok Tripathi paid Rs.…

## 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/sh-sushil-ansal-vs-ashok-tripathi-and-ors-ca-02c2dfb6