# In the matter of AMR Infrastructures Ltd. CP No. (ISB)-03 (PB) 2017

> NCLT judgment dated 2017-02-20. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLT-00969. 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-00969
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/amr-infrastructures-ltd-cp-no-isb-03-pb-2017-4799c5c4

## 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 parties on 18.10.2011. The company undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 9,050 every month w.e.f. 15.11.2011 to the petitioner as 'assured return' till the date of possession. An allotment agreement was signed on 28.3.2014

…

## Facts

Col. Vinod Awasthy (the Petitioner) booked a flat in the project 'i-Homes' of AMR Infrastructures Ltd. (the Respondent Company) for a total consideration of Rs. 19,80,000. The Petitioner paid an advance amount of Rs. 9,87,284. An MOU was executed on 18.10.2011, and the Respondent Company agreed 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 but failed to continue payments despite repeated requests. An allotment agreement was signed on 28.3.2014, stipulating possession by December 2014, but possession was not given. On 26.9.2016, a notice under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, was served, demanding Rs. 12,76,884 plus interest. A statutory notice under the IBC was issued

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Petitioner can be considered an 'Operational Creditor' within the meaning of Section …

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

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the petitioner did not supply any goods or render any services to

…

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

…

**Application:** In this case, the petitioner's claim arises from the failure of the respondent

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. M. K…; R. VARADH…
- **Appellants:** Col. Vinod…
- **Respondents:** AMR Infrastructure…
- **Advocates:** C.S Par…

## Timeline

- **2006-06-15 — Incorporation of…**: The respondent company, AMR Infrastructures Ltd., was incorporated with ROC UP &…
- **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-isb-03-pb-2017-4799c5c4