# In the matter of Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. CP (IB) – 2944(PB)-2019

> NCLT judgment dated 2023-02-06. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLT-04769. The case involves an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 6 Feb 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLT-04769
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/ansal-hi-tech-townships-ltd-cp-ib-2944pb-2019-3cfea240

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by Prashant Gill & Ors., the Financial Creditors (FC)/Applicants, against M/S Ansal Hi Tech Township LTD., the Respondent/Corporate Debtor (CD), for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The applicants claimed default in repayment of Rs. 1,20,59,942.12/-. The Financial Creditors/Applicants booked and purchased three plots jointly in the project developed by the Corporate Debtor under the name and style of “SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS DA-2”. The Corporate Debtor failed to handover possession even after executing the plot allotment agreement and issuing the allotment letter.

## Facts

Prashant Gill & Ors. filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against M/S Ansal Hi Tech Township LTD. for initiating CIRP, claiming a default of Rs. 1,20,59,942.12/-. The applicants, related parties, booked three plots in the Corporate Debtor's project, “SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS DA-2”, making advance payments. The Corporate Debtor executed booking agreements and plot allotment agreements but failed to deliver possession. The applicants filed complaints with UP-RERA, which ordered refunds with interest. The Corporate Debtor offered credit notes for settlement, which Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 accepted, receiving alternative allotments. Applicant No. 3 did not settle. The applicants argued that the RERA orders and recovery certificates

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the applicants, being allottees under a real estate project, meet the threshold criteria …

**Ratio:** The second proviso to Section 7(1) of the IBC, as amended, requires that for financial

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority relied on the judgments in Sunitha Venkatesh vs. Oragadam City

…

**Interpretation:** The amendment to Section 7 of the IBC imposes a threshold requirement for

…

**Application:** In this case, the applicants did not file any documents to show that they meet

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ramalingam…; AVINASH K.…
- **Appellants:** Prashant…
- **Respondents:** M/S Ansal Hi Tech…
- **Advocates:** Asmita Cha…; N. Cha…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2006-11-06 — Incorporation of…**: The Corporate Debtor, M/S Ansal Hi…
- **2010-10-20 — Advance Payments for…**: Applicants made advance payments for booking…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 5(8) — 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-division-bench-court-i-chenn/ansal-hi-tech-townships-ltd-cp-ib-2944pb-2019-3cfea240