# In the matter of Sushma Paranjpe vs. Rohan Developers Private Ltd.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-12-06. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00049. The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by the…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 6 Dec 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00049
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sushma-paranjpe-vs-rohan-developers-private-ltd-12c29a04

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by the Appellant against the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-IV) in CP (IB) No. 908/MB-IV/2021. The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the Section 7 application filed by the Appellant, Mrs. Sushma Paranjpe, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, Rohan Developers Private Limited. The appellant claimed that the respondent defaulted in making interest payments since October 2017.

## Facts

In 2008, Vijay N. Paranjpe, the deceased husband of the Appellant, paid Rs. 4 crore to Rohan Developers Private Ltd. (Respondent) as earnest money for booking a flat. Due to lack of progress, Vijay sought a refund in 2011, and the Respondent agreed to return the amount with 12% interest per annum. The sum was treated as an unsecured loan in the Respondent's books. The Respondent paid regular interest until FY 2015-16, ceasing on 31.03.2017 due to financial constraints, requesting a waiver of interest, which was declined. The Appellant contends that the Respondent defaulted on interest payments from October 2017. Vijay passed away on 21.10.2018, and the loan was transferred to the Appellant's name, confirmed in the FY 2019-20 accounts signed by the Respondent. On

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in holding that the Section 7 application was not …

**Ratio:** Section 10A of the IBC prohibits the initiation of CIRP for defaults occurring on or

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the purpose of Section 10A was to protect corporate debtors from

…

**Interpretation:** Section 10A is interpreted to mean that it only bars CIRP proceedings for

…

**Application:** In this case, the NCLAT found that the default had been committed by the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** Sushma Pa…
- **Respondents:** Rohan Developers…

## Timeline

- **2008-01-01 — Payment of Earn…**: Vijay N. Paranjpe paid Rs. 4 crore to Rohan Developers Private Ltd. as earnest money for…
- **2011-01-01 — Request for…**: Vijay sought a refund of the earnest money…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/sushma-paranjpe-vs-rohan-developers-private-ltd-12c29a04