# In the matter of AMR Infrastructures Ltd. C.P. No. (IB)-10-(PB)-2017

> NCLT judgment dated 2017-02-20. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLT-00971. The case involves an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 20 Feb 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLT-00971
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/amr-infrastructures-ltd-cp-no-ib-10-pb-2017-d76fa86e

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent Company, AMR Infrastructures Ltd. The petitioner, Col. Vinod Awasthy, booked a flat in the respondent's project, i-Homes, for a total consideration of Rs. 19,80,000 and paid an advance of Rs. 9,87,284. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the petitioner and the respondent company on 18.10.2011. The company undertook to pay Rs. 9,050 per month as 'assured return' from 15.11.2011 until possession. The respondent paid the assured return until December 2013

…

## Facts

Col. Vinod Awasthy (the Petitioner) booked a flat in the project 'i-Homes' developed by AMR Infrastructures Ltd. (the Respondent Company). The total consideration for the flat was Rs. 19,80,000, and the Petitioner paid an advance amount of Rs. 9,87,284. An MOU was executed on 18.10.2011, where the Respondent Company agreed to pay Rs. 9,050 per month as 'assured return' from 15.11.2011 until the date of possession. The Respondent Company paid the assured return until December 2013 but defaulted thereafter, leading the Petitioner to demand a refund of the entire booking amount. An allotment agreement was signed on 28.3.2014, stipulating possession by December 2014, but possession was not given. A notice under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, was served on

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Petitioner can be considered an 'Operational Creditor' under Section 5(20) of the …

**Ratio:** An 'Operational Creditor' is defined as a person to whom an operational debt is owed and

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the petitioner had neither supplied any goods nor rendered any

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 5(20) of the IBC to mean that an 'Operational

…

**Application:** In this case, the Petitioner's claim arose from the delayed possession of a

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** CHIEF JUSTICE…; R. VARADH…
- **Appellants:** Col. Vinod…
- **Respondents:** AMR Infrastructure…

## Timeline

- **2006-06-15 — Incorporation of…**: AMR Infrastructures Ltd. was…
- **2011-10-18 — Execution…**: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the Petitioner and the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 5(7) — Definitions](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-5)

---

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/nclt-chandigarh/amr-infrastructures-ltd-cp-no-ib-10-pb-2017-d76fa86e