# In the matter of Lavasa Corporation Ltd. (Kishore Vussonji & Ors. Vs. Devendra Prasad) MA Nos. 1276, 1279, 1283 & 1293-2018 in CP No. (IB)-1765-(MB)-2018

> NCLT judgment dated 2018-11-14. Citation: TCN-2018-NCLT-00342. The case involves multiple Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) related to the insolvency…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 14 Nov 2018
- **Citation:** TCN-2018-NCLT-00342
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/lavasa-corporation-ltd-kishore-vussonji-ors-vs-devendra-prasad-ma-nos-1276-1279-a7ebd61e

## Summary

### Background

The case involves multiple Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) related to the insolvency resolution process of Lavasa Corporation Limited. The applicant, a creditor, participated in a project by Lavasa Corporation and sought the inclusion of Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal as an authorized representative for allottees under real estate projects. The applicant also raised objections to the initially proposed authorized representatives, citing logistical issues and lack of information. The core issue revolves around the appointment of an authorized representative for a class of creditors (home buyers) in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

## Facts

Lavasa Corporation Limited initiated a project at Dasve mountains, where the applicant participated by signing an agreement on 2009-05-21 to acquire a villa, making substantial payments. On 2018-08-30, Lavasa Corporation was declared 'Insolvent' under Section 9 of the IBC, with Mr. Devendra Prasad appointed as the IRP. The IRP issued a public announcement on 2018-09-01, inviting claims from creditors. The applicant lodged a claim and was admitted as a financial creditor on 2018-09-05. The applicant objected to the proposed authorized representatives for the 'Class of Creditors' (allottees under real estate project) due to logistical concerns and lack of information. The applicant suggested Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal as an alternative authorized representative. Mr. Shailesh

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the IRP followed the correct procedure for appointing an authorized representative for a …

**Ratio:** The procedure for appointing an authorized representative is governed by Regulations 4A,

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the regulations mandate the IRP to propose three names for the

…

**Interpretation:** The regulations are interpreted to mean that the IRP has the primary

…

**Application:** In this case, the court found that the IRP had followed the prescribed

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M.K. Sh…
- **Appellants:** Kishore Vu…
- **Respondents:** Lavasa Corporation…; Devendra…

## Timeline

- **2009-05-21 — Agreement…**: Applicant signed an agreement to get a Villa…
- **2018-08-30 — Corporate Debtor…**: Lavasa Corporation Limited was declared “Insolvent” in CP (IB)-1765/(MB)/2018 u/s.9 of…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

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/lavasa-corporation-ltd-kishore-vussonji-ors-vs-devendra-prasad-ma-nos-1276-1279-a7ebd61e